Public Document Pack

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Members of Planning Committee are invited to attend this meeting at South Walks House, South Walks, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1UZ to consider the items listed on the following page.

Matt Prosser Chief Executive

Date: Thursday, 17 August 2017 Time: 1.00 pm Venue: Rooms A and B, South Walks House Members of Committee: F Horsington (Chairman), N Bundy (Vice-Chairman), T Bartlett, S Christopher, D Elliott, I Gardner, S Jones MBE, M Lawrence, R Legg, F McKenzie and R Potter

USEFUL INFORMATION For more information about this agenda please telephone Linda Quinton 01305 252211 email [email protected]

This agenda and reports are also available on the Council’s website at www.dorsetforyou.com/committees/ West Dorset District Council.

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

Mod.gov public app now available – Download the free public app now for your iPad, Android and Windows 8.1/10 tablet from your app store. Search for Mod.gov to access agendas/ minutes and select Dorset Councils Partnership.

Disabled access is available for all of the council’s committee rooms. Hearing loop facilities are available. Please speak to a Democratic Services Officer for assistance in using this facility.

Recording, photographing and using social media at meetings The council is committed to being open and transparent in the way it carries out its business whenever possible. Anyone can film, audio-record, take photographs, and use social media such as tweeting and blogging to report the meeting when it is open to the public, so long as they conform to the Council’s protocol, a copy of which can be obtained from the Democratic Services Team. A G E N D A

Page No.

1 APOLOGIES

To receive any apologies for absence.

2 CODE OF CONDUCT

Members are required to comply with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011 and the Council’s Code of Conduct regarding disclosable pecuniary and other interests.

Check if there is an item of business on this agenda in which the member or other relevant person has a disclosable pecuniary or other disclosable interest

Check that the interest has been notified to the Monitoring Officer (in writing) and entered in the Register (if not this must be done within 28 days)

Disclose the interest at the meeting (in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct) and in the absence of dispensation to speak and/or vote, withdraw from any consideration of the item where appropriate. If the interest is non-pecuniary you may be able to stay in the room, take part and vote.

3 MINUTES

To confirm the minutes of the meetings held on 6 and 20 July 2017, previously circulated.

4 PLANNING APPLICATIONS

To consider the applications listed below for planning permission.

A copy of third party representations is available to view on the Planning Portal at Dorsetforyou.com/planning applications. Please note that third parties that have indicated that they wish to make verbal representations to the committee are allowed up to 3 minutes to speak. There will be specific occasions when, at the chairman’s discretion, this may vary and the relevant parties will be notified accordingly.

5 APPLICATION WD/D/17/0758 - CHARITY FARM, MAIN STREET, 5 - 30 LITTON CHENEY

6 APPLICATION WD/D/17/0654 - LAND AT 2 ALINGTON PLACE, 31 - 44 MARTINSTOWN 7 APPLICATION WD/D/16/2726 - FIELD SOUTH OF MEADENS 45 - 54 CARAVAN SITE, KNIGHTS IN THE BOTTOM, CHICKERELL

8 APPLICATION WD/D/17/0190 - ANCREN, COAST ROAD, BURTON 55 - 66 BRADSTOCK

9 APPLICATION WD/D/17/0826 - LAND SOUTH EAST OF WINDSOR 67 - 76 LODGE, CHEDINGTON LANE, MOSTERTON

10 APPLICATION WD/D/17/1220 - HARD STANDING AND ROCK 77 - 86 ARMOUR SOUTH OF SEA HILL LANE, SEATOWN

11 DATE OF SITE VISIT

Monday 11 September 2017.

12 QUESTIONS

To receive questions submitted by members in writing to the Chief Executive and in respect of which the appropriate notice has been given.

13 INFORMAL MEMBER'S BRIEFINGS

To receive informal briefings from officers on major forthcoming applications (if any).

14 URGENT ITEMS

To consider any items that the Chairman decides are urgent.

15 EXEMPT BUSINESS

To move the exclusion of the press and public for the following item in view of the likely disclosure of exempt information within the meaning of paragraphs 1 and 3 of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended).

16 EXEMPT - BREACH OF PLANNING CONTROL - LAND AT Exempt report circulated FLEETWOOD, FLEET ROAD, FLEET, WEYMOUTH. separately This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5

Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/17/000758

Application Number: WD/D/17/000758 Full

Registration Date: 21 March, 2017

Application Site: CHARITY FARM, MAIN STREET, LITTON CHENEY, DORCHESTER, DT2 9AP

Proposal: Erection of 6no. dwellings & conversion of a redundant agricultural building to a dwelling

Applicant: Mr Romans

Ward Members: Cllr J Russell

Case Officer: Ann Collins

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Refuse

2. Description of development 2.1 The proposal is for a development of a total of 7 no. dwellings. Six of the homes will be located on the south side of the former farmyard with the seventh formed by conversion of the former bull pen. Development of the site was originally discussed with WDDC as a Pre- Application, Ref. WD/D/14/001603 and subsequently submitted as planning application WD/D/15/000945. Those applications were withdrawn for further consideration following discussions with the Parish Council and WDDC.

The proposals include:

1. Replacement of the Bull pen with a small 2- bedroom dwelling. This will improve the aspect at the entrance to the site.

2. To dismantle and remove a 112m2 corrugated sheet covered appendage from the east side of the former pig shelter which is currently used for machinery storage.

3. To construct 6 no. 3- bedroom homes each with an internal area of 84 m2 to form a small development.

4. To repair and relocate the former pig maternity shelter. The shed will be used as an ancillary structure to provide 2no. car parking spaces for the development and storage to support the Tithe barn

Page 5 holiday accommodation.

2.2 There is a corresponding listed building consent application

3. Main planning issues · Principle of development · Impact on the setting of the listed building. · Impact on character and appearance of Conservation Area · AONB · Residential amenity · Highway safety · Biodiversity · CIL

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Litton Cheney Parish Council met on 18th May to consider the two planning applications for Charity Farm. In addition to the applicant and agent, twenty six local residents attended indicating considerable interest in this proposed development. Also in attendance was District Cllr John Russell.

Litton Cheney Parish Council during a meeting that lasted two and a half hours, having listened to all those wishing to speak, deliberated for some time before deciding to respond via “Comment” rather than “Object” or “Support” for the following reasons and concerns:-

1. Litton Cheney has no Defined Development Boundary and the Local Plan indicates that other than an area identified as an Exception Site no development would take place in such a situation. SUS2 iii) of the Local Plan, while stating that outside of a DDB, development will be strictly controlled, allows for affordable housing and open market housing through re-use of existing rural buildings. The planning application has elements of the two exceptions plus an assertion by the applicant in the application form that the proposed development area is a redundant farmyard, although more accurately described as agricultural land of little use. The Parish Council are therefore unsure how this fits with the Local Plan.

Litton Cheney Parish Council welcomes the proposal for three affordable dwellings on the Charity Farm site. The “affordable” aspect however needs to be more clearly defined and established, given the application form only refers to market housing.

As a result of a recent survey Litton Cheney has chosen not to pursue a Neighbourhood Plan on a 60/40 percentage outcome believing that the Local Plan will accommodate the aspirations of the majority of

Page 6 local residents.

In addition the Parish Council have the following concerns:

We believe that there is inadequate car parking provision in accordance with the Dorset Residential Car Park Study, which will lead to cars being parked on the already congested village highways. We understand that there is a requirement such that if the developer wishes to provide a different level of parking, they will need to provide evidence to support their proposals and agree the variation with both Highways Development Control Engineers at Dorset County Council and with the Planning Officers.

The Parish Council believe the 6 proposed dwellings to be over-development of the site given the density of dwellings and is out of scale within the village, AONB and conservation area. The density impacts considerably on the ability to satisfy the requirements of a).

The site is elevated higher than adjacent properties and the council are concerned about overlooking and loss of privacy of several nearby properties thereby giving cause for a material planning objection. We are heartened however that at the meeting the architect indicated he would submit amended plans to show a fence along the south and west boundaries of affected properties. The applicant and architect also indicated a willingness to liaise with owners of neighbouring properties in order to seek resolution of their concerns including effective landscaping.

If the District Council was considering approving the application the council would ask for a condition requiring that the pig barn be dismantled and relocated to its new position before development commences, and that the roof of the pig barn be constructed or covered in appropriate material and painted a suitable colour. The applicant indicated that this is his intention.

In the event of approval the Parish Council would strongly lobby for a condition that the southern entrance to Charity Farm be used by construction traffic and future occupants of the new dwellings at all times. The council would also require a condition that the existing access via the Tithe Barn be blocked off from the site prior to development commencing and retained thereafter.

The applicant confirmed that the Bull Pen dwelling would be sold as an open market property for permanent residency as opposed to second home ownership or as an adjunct to the Tithe Barn as a holiday-let. Confirmation was also given that whilst construction was underway, materials would be brought in via the southerly access, avoiding use of the normal access to the Tithe Barn.

Page 7 2. The applicant has offered to enter into an S106 agreement regarding the “affordable” dwellings aspect and how this would be ascertained and eligibility established. The perceived need for truly affordable housing in the village has yet to be established and within this application appears to be based on anecdotal evidence, there being no response as yet from the Housing Enabling Team Leader (a consultee).The council feel it absolutely essential that the Parish Council have an active involvement in establishing the terms of the S106, conditions that would be in perpetuity, should the District Council be minded to approve the application.

3. Finally, the Parish Council considers this unfinished business due to insufficient information being provided. Undertakings and avowed intentions were indicated by the applicant and agent at the meeting which will need to be reiterated and ultimately incorporated as concrete obligations into an S106, and adjustments made to the application before the council can move beyond “Comment”.

Highway Authority 4.2 No objection subject to a condition regarding the provision of the areas for manoeuvring, parking, loading and unloading of vehicles as shown on the approved drawings and their retention there afterwards.

5. Other consultations 5.1 DCP Environmental Health – No comment.

DCP Conservation Officer – The development does have an affect on the listed building but it is acceptable. The development has been kept as far away from the barn as possible. The scale and materials used for the development respects the rural nature of the area and do not detract from the setting of the barn. The site layout does not overcrowd the foreground of the main listed building.

DCP Housing Enabling Team – The application is for a small scheme of six units and the conversion of a bull pen on Charity Farm. The site is not within a defined development boundary so it would be expected that all the properties delivered would be affordable. If there are to be affordable homes then this proposal needs to be more clearly defined by the applicant with a S106 agreement to secure the properties in perpetuity. There is a high level of housing need in the District but further work needs to be done to establish the level of housing need in Litton Cheney.

DCP Technical Services Team – No comments to make on this application with regard to flood risk or ground instability.

DCP Planning Policy – The comments of the planning policy officer will be detailed and considered further in the report below.

6. Other representations

Page 8 6.1 8 letters of representation have been received from 6 different writers. They raise the following points:

· Require the timber barn to be erected as shown on the drawings and for it to be completed prior to the commencement of any other part of the development. Also require a condition that its use be permanently restricted to storage or garaging and that no windows or rooflights be inserted along the side facing “Watercombe”. If it completely disintegrates whilst being dismantled, a repaired or replacement building should be erected. Without these guarantees there is a strong objection to the development. · More thought needs to be given to the screening of the garden to “Corn Rigs”. · If Litton Cheney is to have more development for local need this is the type of housing required but it is not clear if it will be “open market” or “affordable housing”. · If all planting and screening is done this type of development, although not perfect, could be suitable for this site. · No objections to the building of 6 new dwellings. · The increased use of the track to access the “bull pen” means there needs to be repairs to broken drainage and surface strengthening. · Wheelwrights cottage has a long thin garden which on two sides would be bordered by the development. There is only a wire fence and newly planted hedge to provide screening. Noise and activity of 6 households and vehicles up against the boundary would be significant. The proposed vegetable/fruit area adjacent to the boundary would concentrate activity and play, particularly at the weekends. · The communal heating plant, its feed mechanism and deliveries to it would generate noise, but hard to determine as lack sufficient detail. · Garden of Wheelwrights and rear of the house would be overlooked. The proposed fruit trees would cast a shadow across the garden. Could erect a fence around the garden but then this would put much of the garden in the shade and would not stop sound or fumes. · Fumes would be generated by traffic, car parking and biomass boiler, · Development would result in a loss of outlook to Wheelwrights. Any fence around the garden would further this loss. · Backland development that is out of character. · Unconvinced that a fragile grade II listed building can be successfully moved. The rare surviving thatched barn is currently protected by tin covering. · Overdevelopment of the site and not in keeping with the rest

Page 9 of the village. · No evidence that additional properties are required. There are family sized properties for sale in the village that have not been bought. · Parking is insufficient. · Neighbouring properties will suffer a loss of privacy and amenity. The proposed development site is some 3 to 4 metres higher than Main Street resulting in a row of houses dominating the area, seen from all around the village and looking directly down into existing gardens and bedrooms. · Submitted plans include errors. · New dwellings would face neighbouring properties from an elevated position. This would result in loss of privacy to garden and bedrooms and a loss of outlook. Landscaping and planting would be particularly important in reducing this impact. · There is an existing Holm Oak on the site adjacent to the rear boundary of Watercombe, now shown on the site plan. It should be retained as a valuable feature and for screening of existing properties. · A wide margin should be added along the east boundary with a new hedge and a 2m high close boarded fence. · It could be possible in Litton Cheney to accommodate houses in smaller groups adjacent to the street. · The proposals do not meet the criteria in Policy HS2 of the adopted local plan. · The applicant has now agreed to sell a strip of land adjacent to the garden of Wheelwrights Cottage which would mean the development would not dominate the garden. The gains of him doing this would counterbalance the remaining issues of disturbance at the end of the garden.

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

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History

App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Office r 1/D/07/0013 FUL Erect replacement A 26 EH 85 agricultural building Septem ber 2007 WD/D/14/00 FUL A new agricultural livestock A 28 April DR

Page 10 0574 building in the existing farm 2014 yard WD/D/14/00 FUL An agricultural building in A 28 April DR 0576 the existing farm yard of 2014 Charity Farm to be used for the storage of feed and machinery WD/D/14/00 CWC Request for confirmation of 20 DR 1577 compliance with condition August 4, 5 and 6 of planning 2014 approval WD/D/14/000574 WD/D/14/00 CWC Request for confirmation of 03 DR 1578 compliance with condition 3 Septem of planning approval ber WD/D/14/000576 2014 WD/D/15/00 FUL Erection of 3no. new W 09 BB 0945 dwellings Septem ber 2015 WD/D/15/00 LBC Erection of 3no. new W 09 BB 0946 dwellings Septem ber 2015 WD/D/16/00 FUL Erection of 3no. dwellings UNK 1908 WD/D/16/00 LBC Erection of 3no. dwellings INV 1909 WD/D/16/00 FUL Erect 6no dwellings, UNK 2569 alterations and conversion of former bull pen to dwelling WD/D/16/00 LBC Dismantle, repair and UNK 2570 relocate former pig maternity shelter and use as storage and parking WD/D/17/00 LBC Dismantle barn (pig shelter) A ALC 0759 and former bull pen

9. The Development Plan

The WDDC/WPBC Local Plan (adopted Oct 2015) As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant. INT1 – Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV1 – Landscape, seascape and sites of other geological interest ENV2 – Wildlife and Habitats ENV4 – Heritage assets

Page 11 ENV10 – The landscape and townscape setting ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings ENV16 – Amenity SUS2 – Distribution of Development SUS3 – Adaptation and re-use of buildings outside defined development boundaries COM7 – Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM9 – Parking Standards in New Development COM1 – Making sure new development makes suitable provision for community infrastructure

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 WDDC Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)

AONB Management Plan 2014 - 2019

11. Other Material Planning Considerations 11.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

Part 6 - Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Part 12 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

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.

Decision taking: Para 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.

Para 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

Page 12 12 Conservation Area Appraisals Puncknowle, Burton Bradstock, Litton Cheney, Winterbourne Abbas and Shipton Gorge Conservation Area Appraisal (2007)

13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development:

The application site is on the edge of Litton Cheney, a village which in the adopted local plan does not have a defined development boundary. It is within the AONB and within the Litton Cheney Conservation Area. The barn to the north of the site is a grade II listed building.

The application proposes 6 new build dwellings and the replacement of a former bull pen with an additional dwelling, making 7 in total. It also proposes the demolition of a curtilage listed building (for which there is a separate application for listed building consent) and the erection of a new garage/store building.

Planning policy officers have commented on the application and their comments have fed into the following assessment of the application.

The main policy issues are:

conflict with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan (Policy SUS2), and the impacts of the proposed development.

The proposals need to be considered in the context of the councils not being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. The result is that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date’ in line with paragraph 49 of the NPPF. This has triggered the engagement of paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the application of the second sentence of Policy INT1 of the Local Plan.

In relation to the spatial strategy in the Local Plan, Litton Cheney village does not have a DDB but is a settlement of 200+ population.

13.2 Implications of the Recent Supreme Court Judgement:

The councils cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In a recent appeal decision at Ryme Road, Yetminster (Appeal Ref: APP/F1230/W/16/3145484) the Inspector concluded that the councils have 4.63 years of supply across the local plan area and this remains the position.

The ‘decision-taking’ provisions in paragraph 14 of the NPPF are engaged when ‘relevant policies’ in a local plan are out-of-date. Paragraph 49 of the NPPF states: “relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning

Page 13 authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites”.

A recent (May 2017) Supreme Court judgement (Suffolk Coastal District Council v Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council [2017] UKSC 37) concluded that paragraph 49 of the NPPF essentially acts as a ‘trigger’ for the engagement of paragraph 14, in situations where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing sites. In the light of the current housing land supply position in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland, it is accepted that paragraph 14 has been triggered in relation to this application.

The Supreme Court also ruled that paragraph 49 should only apply to ‘housing supply policies’, rather than to other policies which may interact with housing supply policies and so have some effect on their operation. In the light of this ‘narrow’ interpretation in the judgement, the ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing’ in the Local Plan, which are considered to be out-of-date in relation to this application, are Policies SUS1 and SUS2.

The Supreme Court judgement also re-asserts the primacy of the development plan. In determining this application, the overall planning judgement on this proposal needs to reflect the primacy of the Local Plan given by statute and the status of the NPPF as a material consideration, which should not displace or distort the statutory scheme.

The application needs to be determined under the general provisions in the second part of paragraph 14, meaning that permission should be granted unless the presumption can be displaced on either or both of the grounds set out in the second part of that paragraph.

Under the ‘tilted balance’ in the penultimate bullet of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the presumption could be displaced on the grounds that the ‘adverse impacts’ of the proposal ‘significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF and against Local Plan policies. In cases where the ‘tilted balance’ is applied, consideration needs to be given to the extent to which the weight given to any restrictive Local Plan policy (whether out of date or not) should be reduced.

Under the final bullet in paragraph 14 of the NPPF the presumption could be displaced if the proposal is contrary to certain ‘specific policies’ in the NPPF. The Supreme Court judgement indicates that when applying this bullet, any proposed development should also be considered against related policies in the Local Plan, which should be given full statutory weight in decision-making.

13.3 Conflicts with Policy:

Page 14 The proposal is contrary to criterion i) of Policy SUS2, which sets out the spatial strategy for the Local Plan area. Criterion i) of Policy SUS2 directs development in rural areas to settlements with DDBs, which occupy the third tier of the settlement hierarchy after the ‘mains towns’ of Dorchester and Weymouth and the ‘market and coastal towns’. Criterion i) of Policy SUS2 also states that settlements without DDBs “may also have some growth to meet their local needs”. The rationale for this approach is explained in paragraph 3.3.27 of the Local Plan, with an emphasis on neighbourhood plans and other planning tools but highlighting the problems associated with development in rural locations.

Criterion iii) of Policy SUS2 states that: “Outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints”. The policy restricts development outside of DDBs to a limited range of uses but only makes provision for market housing through the re-use of existing rural buildings or affordable housing as exception sites (Policy HOUS2).

As a settlement without a DDB, Litton Cheney village sits in the lowest tier of the settlement hierarchy and therefore is not a location where development for market housing would be directed. The proposed development site lies outside of any DDB, and is therefore in a location where development is strictly controlled under Policy SUS2. The proposal is for market housing but does not re-use an existing building (even the dwelling where the former bull pen is would be a new build dwelling given how little of the existing building remains); it is therefore contrary to the provisions of SUS2 criterion iii).

The scheme proposes the creation of a total of 7 new market dwellings although a statement is included suggesting that three out of the seven units would be sold at a discount below market value and the discount suggested in an email from the agent is 20%. It is suggested that the new dwellings will help to meet a local need although little quantitative evidence is supplied within the submitted documentation to prove that given the lack of a documented housing need in Litton Cheney and having regard to the percentage discount.

Under criterion iii) of Policy SUS2, particular regard should be given to environmental constraints, so any impacts on such constraints should be evaluated when applying this criterion. The site is located within the Dorset AONB therefore any impacts on the designated area should be considered against Policy ENV1. Similarly, the proposal site is in the conservation area and in close proximity to several listed structures so the impacts should be considered against Policy ENV4. These matters will be considered in detail below.

13.4 Making a Planning Judgement:

Page 15 The Supreme Court supported the view that the weight to be given to policies (including out-of-date policies) “is, as ever, a matter for the decision-maker”.

In the decision on the recent appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster the Inspector considered Policy SUS2 to be out-of-date however afforded significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criterion i). The Inspector did however recognise that criterion iii) could not be afforded full weight because it “restricts development outside of the DDB” thus limiting the supply of housing. Since the housing land supply situation remains unchanged, it is considered reasonable to afford differing weight to the constituent parts of Policy SUS2 in a similar way when determining this application.

Since the councils do not have a five-year supply, consideration should be given to reducing the weight given to criterion iii) of Policy SUS2 in order to help fulfil the objectives in paragraph 47 of the NPPF when applying the ‘tilted balance’. However, as part of that judgement, it is also important to have regard to:

· the extent of the current housing land supply shortfall; and · the measures the councils are putting in place to address it.

The extent of the housing land supply shortfall in the local plan area is just 0.37 years below 5, as evidenced in the recent appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster. The councils have also taken action to address the housing land supply shortfall not only by making progress on the Local Plan Review (which is at ‘issues and options’ stage), but also through the granting of consents on sites outside, but adjoining settlements with DDBs (i.e. at the first three tiers of the settlement hierarchy).

Affording significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criterion i) of Policy SUS2 and having regard to the modest size of the shortfall and the positive measures the councils are taking to address it, it is considered that there is a case to resist this scheme on spatial strategy grounds, since the proposal:

· is located at a settlement at the lowest tier of the spatial hierarchy, to which development in rural areas is not directed, and · the proposal does not re-use an existing rural building but proposes open market housing.

There may also be sufficient justification to displace the presumption under the final bullet in paragraph 14 of the NPPF, if there is also some demonstrable harm, when measured against the national policies in the NPPF and against other related policies in the Local Plan.

Paragraph 15 of the NPPF sets out that local plans should set out how

Page 16 the presumption in favour of sustainable development should be applied locally. The adopted local plan sets out the application of this presumption through Policy INT1 stating that:

“There will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area. Where there are no policies relevant to an application, or relevant policies are out of date at the time of making the decision, the following matters will be taken into account:

· The extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan; · Whether specific policies in that National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should be restricted; and · Whether the adverse impacts of granting permission could significantly outweigh the benefits.”

The second and third bullets of policy INT1 reflect the provisions of the second part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. However, the first bullet - to take account of the extent to which a proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the Local Plan - is an additional provision specific to the local situation. Paragraph 1.3.1 of the Local Plan identifies these strategic objectives as being “a concise expression of the priorities of this Local Plan” aimed at delivering sustainable development.

13.5 These strategic objectives are:

Support the local economy to provide for high quality, better paid jobs – it is considered that the proposal would not do this other than possibly jobs during the construction period. Meet local housing needs for all as far as is practicable – The proposal is not for an exception site entirely for affordable housing. The proposal is for 7 dwellings of which the applicant is indicating that 3 may be affordable. The applicant is suggesting that subject to the completion of a S106 agreement the properties would have their sale price restricted to an agreed percentage of the market value and would allocate to families or persons on the West Dorset Housing Register with a local connection to Litton Cheney, children attending Litton Cheney Primary School or employed in Litton Cheney or adjacent villages. The applicant has suggested a discount of 20% such that the properties could only be sold at 80% of the market price (this was suggested in an email from the agent fairly late in the consideration of the application and further discussion hasn’t taken place at this time with the applicant as to the appropriateness of that discount and whether it can be addressed to the satisfaction of all parties via a S106 agreement). It may be that a 20% discount on the open market value would not make the proposed “affordable” units genuinely affordable. However notwithstanding that the scheme would still only provide three units and the applicant hasn’t established the level of housing need in Litton

Page 17 Cheney to ascertain if what is proposed is justified or going any significant way to meeting local housing need. In addition if the applicant had done more work on housing need in Litton Cheney he would be able to evidence, or not as the case maybe, whether discount market housing is the most appropriate means of affordable housing for the village or whether demand exists for affordable rented or shared ownership instead.

Regenerate key areas including Weymouth and Dorchester town centres, to improve the area’s retail, arts, cultural and leisure offer; and increase employment opportunities – not considered relevant to this proposal.

Support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities – it is considered that the development wouldn’t make any contribution to the provision of safe and healthy communities and that the future occupiers would have very limited accessibility to services and facilities other than by car.

Protect and enhance the outstanding natural and built environment, including its landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity, and the local distinctiveness of places within the area (this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change) – the impact on the AONB, Conservation Area, setting of listed building and biodiversity will be considered in more detail below.

Reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, both by minimising the potential impacts and by adapting to those that are inevitable (this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are at the highest risk) – not considered relevant as this objective is in respect of flooding and coastal erosion which are not applicable to this site.

Provide greater opportunities to reduce car use; improve safety; ensure convenient and appropriate public transport services; and seek greater network efficiency for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians – given the size of Litton Cheney and the lack of facilities in the village, the proposal is likely to result in increased reliance on car travel.

Achieve high quality and sustainability in design, reflecting local character and distinctiveness of the area – the design of the scheme will be considered below.

13.6 In terms of the strategic objectives of the local plan and the three dimensions to sustainable development identified in the NPF: economic, social and environmental more discussion of these points will now follow.

Economic – Short term economic benefits would result from the proposal in the form of providing work for contractors and suppliers

Page 18 involved within the construction phase. There may be some longer term benefits by supporting local services in Litton Cheney (although these are limited anyway). As such it is not considered there would be any significant long term economic benefits to the proposed development.

Social – The proposal being for 7 dwellings would not make a significant contribution to increasing housing land supply. 4 of the dwellings would be market dwellings and 3 may fall under the definition of affordable housing so some limited contribution may be made to the provision of affordable housing. There may be limited social benefit in terms of the occupants of the dwelling supporting what local services there are in Litton Cheney.

Environmental – There are a number of environmental issues to be considered and these will be considered in turn below:

13.7 Visual impact on AONB and impact on Conservation Area and setting of the listed building:

The site is within the AONB. Most of the site is also within the Conservation Area, although the very southern part and vehicular access to the south are not. The Old Tithe Barn to the north that is outside of the application site but within the applicant’s ownership is a grade II listed building. Four of the properties to the east of the site who have gardens abutting the application site are also listed buildings.

The dwelling proposed where the derelict bull pen is currently would be accessed via the existing access track from Main Street which serves a number of existing properties, including the old tithe barn. This dwelling would be built right up to the northern boundary of the site, such that amenity space for the property would be provided to the west. A parking space would be provided on the opposite side of the track. The property would be a two bedroom dwelling constructed of stone and with a natural slate roof. Most of the openings would be to the south elevation. There would however be two openings in the north elevation in the form of rooflights to serve bedroom 1. These windows would face a paddock to the north, not in the applicant’s ownership. There would also be a door and a first floor window in the west elevation facing into the garden for the proposed property and along the track which allows access to the agricultural buildings to the west.

13.8 The other 6 dwellings proposed would all be accessed via the proposed vehicular access from the south. This access would connect to the existing vehicular access to the house at Charity Farm and would therefore pass between that house and the rear of the builder’s yard/offices adjacent to the site. On the southern part of the site there is currently a detached former agricultural building which is proposed to be removed and for which there is a separate application for listed building consent. The 6 dwellings are proposed in the form of a

Page 19 detached property, a terrace of three and a pair of semi’s. House A at the southern edge of the site would be detached and the walls would be render and timber board with a natural slate roof. The property would have 3 bedrooms. Houses B, C and D which would form a terrace would be three bedroom and have rendered walls above a natural stone plinth and a natural slate roof. Houses E and F which are the semi’s would also be three bedroomed and would be natural stone with a natural slate roof. It is these properties that would be closest to the listed barn to the north. All of the dwellings would have gardens to the rear and properties D, E and F would back on to the modern agricultural buildings in the yard to the rear. A total of 9 parking spaces are proposed for the 6 dwellings. The majority of these would be adjacent to the rear boundary of the gardens of the properties in Main Street, although two spaces would be provided in a new building on the eastern edge of the site which would also provide a storage area for the old tithe barn. This building is intended to resemble that to be removed and would be on a timber frame with corrugated sheeting to the walls and roof and weatherboarding to the gable end.

13.9 Also proposed for the site is a district heating plant, pellet hopper and an area of community fruit trees and vegetable plots. These would be adjacent to the boundary with the builder’s yard to the south, and neighbour’s gardens to the east and partly to the north. The pellet hopper would be a 2.4m square silo and the heating plant would be accommodated in a timber clad building with a slate roof. There would be a flue to the roof of the building.

13.10 The site is quite visually contained and whilst on the western edge of the village is seen in the context of existing buildings adjoining the site on all sides. The Council’s tree and landscape officer commented on the scheme at a pre-application stage when he said:

“I have no objection to the principle of development as proposed from either a landscape or arboricultural perspective. In terms of existing trees there is very little of note on the site, or within neighbouring gardens, so there are no significant constraints upon layout in that respect. From a landscape point of view the site also benefits from being largely enclosed by existing building and structures, and these provide a sense of containment. In addition, glimpsed views of the site from the road to the east tend to be read against the backdrop of other agricultural buildings and, similarly, views from the wider footpath network are seen against the backdrop of the builder’s yard and officers to the south of the site. In these circumstances, although there would be some impact upon the conservation area – in terms of loss of open space, I don’t consider the effect would be significant.”

The officer hasn’t commented on the application currently being considered but given the above comments and the details of what is proposed it is considered that the development of this site would have, subject to a number of conditions, an acceptable impact on the visual

Page 20 amenity of the AONB. Hence the development accords with Policy ENV1 of the adopted local plan and the AONB Management Plan.

13.11 The majority of the application site is within the Conservation Area and even that which isn’t impacts on its setting. It is considered that the demolition of the remainder of the former bull pen building and its replacement with a dwelling would have an acceptable impact given the appearance and materials of the existing structure and the scale, design and materials of the proposed dwelling.

The former agricultural building proposed to be demolished on the main part of the site is not considered to be of any significance in terms of its history, age, design and materials and as such its demolition is considered to have an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. It is proposed to be replaced with a very similar building in terms of size, design and materials, but sited a little further to the east.

13.12 The dwellings would result in the loss of a currently largely undeveloped green space but this area is visually screened by existing buildings and seen in that context from what limited wider public views that exist. As such it is considered that the development of this space would not be significantly detrimental to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

The development is not considered to be overdevelopment of the site. There is considered to be sufficient area to accommodate the proposal without it appearing cramped. Whilst the dwellings would not have gardens of any considerable size they would be perfectly adequate in terms of providing space for a shed, bin storage, clothes drying and amenity purposes. The mix of detached, terraced and semi-detached properties reflects what exists in the vicinity of the site.

The proposed dwellings are of a scale, design and materials which are considered appropriate to this rural village location. Details such as boundary treatments and soft landscaping could be controlled by condition should planning permission be forthcoming.

13.13 In terms of the setting of the listed barn to the north of the main part of the site the barn was granted planning permission to be converted to a unit of holiday accommodation in 2011. The Conservation Officer has commented on the proposed development and considers that the development would have an affect on the listed building but that it is acceptable impact. The officer comments that:

“the development has been kept as far away from the barn as possible. The scale and materials used for the development respects the rural nature of the area and do not detract from the setting of the barn. The site layout does not overcrowd the foreground of the main listed building.”

Page 21 Having regard to Sections 66 and 72 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 it is considered that they are met.

13.14 Biodiversity:

The applicant has submitted a Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team approved biodiversity mitigation plan such that it can be concluded that subject to the implementation of that mitigation plan the development would have an acceptable impact on biodiversity.

13.15 Transport/Highways:

Litton Cheney does not have a defined development boundary reflecting the limited facilities that the village has. The village does have a school, public house and hall. It does not have a shop or post office. The very limited bus service that did exist from the village to Bridport has recently stopped such that there is now no bus service to and from the village. The nearest town is Dorchester and the distance and topography to Dorchester is such that someone would be unlikely to either walk or cycle to the town.

The applicant has commented on the availability of local employment to residents in the village. The CG Fry’s office and yard is immediately adjacent to the site and they are an employer. Ford Farm is relatively close to Litton Cheney but is located outside of the village, approximately 2km away. Whilst that might be within cycling distance there is no dedicated cycleway or footway to and from the village such that a person would be unlikely to walk down the narrow lanes.

Given all of the above there would be the need for the occupier of the proposed dwellings to rely on a car for access. As a consequence the proposed dwellings are not considered to be readily accessible to services and facilities.

13.16 In a recent appeal decision for two dwellings at Marshwood to the west of the district (appeal ref: APP/F1230/W/16/3146642) the Inspector commented “the village does contain some facilities such as the nearby public house as well as a school and church around 370m to the east. In terms of the distance from the site, these facilities are within walking or cycling range. However, there is not a continuous footpath or cycle lane linking the site with them. I found that vehicles driving by the junction with Bottle Lane did so at substantial speed although I did note that the B3165 is theoretically limited to 30mph at this point. Walking out of Bottle Lane along the roadside just as far as the nearby Bottle Inn required occasional standing on an informal verge which had a gulley alongside it. I didn't feel very safe when I did this because of the speed and proximity of the traffic but also because the verge is uneven. I do not consider that walking to these facilities would be very safe. Other facilities exist further away. Reference is

Page 22 made to a shop and garage and there are some limited bus services to nearby settlements. Hawkchurch is around 3 miles away and Axminster which is even further away. However the appellant accepts that the site would lead to further private vehicle journeys and I agree that it would inevitably do so. Whilst the site is close to some residential properties and other buildings, isolation in the context of the Framework also relates to the degree of separation from infrastructure and community facilities. Apart from the public house, the site is isolated from most day to day facilities."

The above appeal decision reinforces the point made about access to services and facilities from the application site being considered here and that the site can be considered to be isolated in the context of paragraph 55 having regard to the degree of separation from infrastructure and community facilities.

An even more recent appeal decision from May this year for a site at Yetminster (Appeal ref: APP/F1230/W/17/3168845) related to a site that was 160m from the defined development boundary at Yetminster with Yetminster having a church, hall, public house, shop, post office, school, garage, health centre and train station. That is a lot more facilities than Litton Cheney. The Inspector still concluded however that due to the lane to the village being narrow, unlit and steeply sloping at one end it would not be very safe. Also whilst the village had a number of facilities the shop was small and located on the western side of the village some distance from the site and the other facilities are also a good walk away. Whilst the railway station was nearer, access to it by pedestrians from the site is constrained by the lack of lit footways. The Inspector stated "for the above reasons I conclude that the proposed dwelling would be in an inaccessible location by sustainable modes of transport. Its occupants would be generally reliant on private vehicles in order to access employment and other day to day facilities."

Members will also be aware of the appeal decision at Land At Sherrins Farm, High Street, Sydling St Nicholas for 15 dwellings which was recommended for approval by officers but refused by Committee and allowed on appeal. That was a village that also had no defined development boundary as is the case here. In that respect the Inspector stated as regards the sustainable location of the site having regard to the Councils spatial strategy that;

· The appeal site is located in the village of Sydling St Nicholas, which does not have a defined development boundary. At the time of determining the planning application, the Council did not raise any concerns with regard to the principle of the development, based mainly on the fact that it could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and its policies that related to the supply of housing were out of date. However, since this time, the Council has adopted the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) (the LP) and the appellants have not contested the fact that the Council

Page 23 can now demonstrate a five year housing land supply. Although, I note that the examining Inspector of the LP has set out that the housing land supply position 'is close to the minimum required to provide choice and competition. It is therefore important that the Councils closely monitor the delivery of new dwellings and take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position, as well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period'.

· Policy SUS2 of the LP sets out the distribution of development strategy. This identifies a settlement hierarchy and settlements without a defined development boundary are the least preferred option and the policy notes that in such locations there may be some growth to meet their local needs. Policy SUS2 of the LP goes on to set out that 'outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints…'. A number of acceptable development types are set out, which includes affordable housing. However, the proposal also includes open market housing, which I do not consider complies with any of the types of development listed under iii) of Policy SUS2 of the LP.

· In terms of there being a local need, the supporting text provides more clarity on this matter. This sets out that '…each village will be different in terms of its needs, opportunities and constraints. As such a more enabling approach is proposed for rural communities - working with those that want to see development take place, to help identify suitable sites to meet their local needs. Using neighbourhood development plans and other planning tools, communities can allocate sites, introduce or extend a development boundary, or develop a criteria-based policy to allow development to take place, where they consider this is the right approach for them'. At the current time, I am not aware of the preparation of a neighbourhood plan for Sydling St Nicholas or any other mechanism by which further development is being planned. The appellants have, however, set out that there is a demonstrable need for affordable housing in Sydling St Nicholas. The Council's Rural Enabling Officer has confirmed that there are over 40 households with a local connection to Sydling St Nicholas or adjacent parishes registered in affordable housing need. I accept that this is a demonstrable need for affordable housing and weighs in favour of the proposal.

· It is also important, however, to examine the level of local services and facilities available to future occupants of the proposed dwellings. The village benefits from a church, a village hall, a public house and has access to school buses. However, there is no shop, doctors, school or access to public transport. Therefore, I consider that future occupants of the open market and affordable dwellings

Page 24 would be entirely reliant upon a private motor vehicle for the vast majority of their day to day needs. The supporting text to Policy SUS2 of the LP sets out that the 'resulting dependency on cars would inevitably increase carbon emissions and disadvantage those who don't have a car (usually the more vulnerable groups in our society), which is why it makes sense to try to focus development at the towns'. Consequently, I consider that the lack of local services, facilities and public transport weighs against the proposal, as does the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle. Interested parties have also set out that internet speeds are slow.

· I acknowledge that the lawful use of the appeal site could generate vehicle movements and I accept that this would to some degree off set potential carbon emissions from the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle. However, such movements are of a different kind and were permitted before the current development plan was adopted. In addition, this matter does not address my concern with regard to the potential disadvantage and isolation that would occur to those who don't have a car, given the lack of local services and facilities for day to day needs.

· In conclusion on this matter, the provision of affordable housing is supported by Policy SUS2 in rural areas without a defined settlement boundary and there is an identified need in the local area for such accommodation. However, there is a distinct lack of local services and facilities, including public transport for the day to day needs of future occupants, who would be heavily dependant on a private motor vehicle. This runs contrary to the stated purpose of Policy SUS2 of the LP. These matters will be taken into account in the overall planning balance.

Given the above the Inspector concluded that other factors were part of the overall planning balance that led him to favour the application and the appeal was allowed with the decision concluding:

· I consider that the benefits in the social and economic dimensions, along with the environmental matters that go in favour of the scheme, as set out above, outweigh the identified harm in terms of the lack of local services, facilities and public transport, the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle and the development plan conflict with Policy SUS2 of the LP. This is in despite of the presence of a five year housing land supply. I consider that the proposal therefore, on balance, constitutes sustainable development.

This will be a matter for Members to consider as regards this site.

13.17 The view that the site is isolated in the context of services and facilities and that occupants of the dwelling would be reliant on a car to obtain access to services and facilities is entirely consistent with the above

Page 25 appeal decisions.

The highway authority has no objection subject to a condition regarding the provision of the manoeuvring, parking, loading and unloading areas as shown on the approved plans prior to the occupation of the dwellings and their retention there afterwards free from obstruction.

13.18 Residential Amenity:

In terms of the dwelling proposed where the former bull pen is currently, due to the orientation of the fenestration it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties as it would not result in any unacceptable overlooking. It would result in the residents of the property using the existing access track to the farm and this track runs to the front and side of other dwellings. However, given that the track already exists and serves the farm and the old tithe barn the addition of a further dwelling to its use is such that it’s not considered to be detrimental to the amenity of neighbouring properties.

The new access from the south from the existing track to the site would only really impact on the applicant’s own house, passing close to the side of the property. To the other side of the track is the existing builder’s premises.

13.19 The existing dwellings to the east of the site have relatively long gardens backing on to the application site. This means there would be over 40m between the east elevations of the new dwellings and the west elevations of the existing dwellings such that there would not be an unacceptable level of window to window overlooking. It is appreciated that the proposed dwellings would be at a higher level than the dwellings to the east. The new dwellings would be closer to the ends of their gardens but screening in the form of landscaping and fencing as appropriate would prevent overlooking at ground floor level. Even from the first floor windows of the new dwellings given the distances involved it is considered that the impact would not be detrimental as to warrant the refusal of the application.

The development would result in more vehicular movements and activity on the land than currently exists, although the land could currently be used for agriculture like the modern farm buildings immediately to the west of the site. However the level of activity from the six dwellings, coupled with the length of the gardens generally to the properties to the east mean that it is considered that the level of noise and activity would not be such as to be unacceptably detrimental to residential amenity.

13.20 There are two properties to the east of the site at the southern end that currently have very open boundaries with the application site. They would need to have some kind of boundary treatment erected in order

Page 26 that those on the application site did not look straight into their gardens at ground level. However such means of boundary treatment could be erected on the application site at no cost to the properties in question and could in fact be erected under permitted development rights regardless of whether planning permission were forthcoming or not. Therefore the concerns of those residents regarding the impact of means of enclosure on their amenity can be given very little weight.

13.21 Third parties have commented on the impact of the proposed district heating plant and pellet hopper. This would be closest to the existing builder’s yard and offices to the south of the site. Environmental health were consulted on the application and have advised they have no comments. It is considered that the impact on the residential amenity of nearby properties would be acceptable, but should planning permission be forthcoming then environmental health have separate powers under other legislation regarding noise and amenity should there be an issue in the future.

The proposed dwellings would in places only be about 11m from the agricultural buildings to the west of the site. There would be sufficient room between the rear boundary of the properties, particularly those units adjacent which are D, E and F and the modern farm buildings to landscape in order to reduce the visual impact of the barn at the end of the gardens of the new dwellings. In terms of the impact on amenity from having dwellings in such close proximity to agricultural buildings then anybody buying one of the houses would be well aware of the proximity when viewing the houses and could make their own assessment as to whether the relationship between the house and the barn suited their requirements/needs. It would be for the market to determine the desirability of the properties and presumably their market value would reflect their siting.

13.22 CIL:

The adopted charging schedule applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set at £0 per sq. m. CIL rate. The development proposal is CIL liable. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sq. m

13.23 Other issues:

Most of the issues raised by the Parish Council and third parties have been addressed above but a few remain to be considered. Comments have been made regarding the erection of the new parking and store building prior to the commencement of any other part of the development. This is not considered necessary. A condition requiring the parking to be provided would ensure the building was erected prior to the dwellings being occupied but it is not considered necessary for it to be the first part of the scheme to be constructed. The materials for

Page 27 the walls and roof of the building would be controlled by a condition if planning permission were forthcoming. A third party is also seeking a condition restricting the future use of the building and that no windows be erected in the east elevation or roof slope of the building. In terms of its use the condition required by the highway authority would mean that the building had to provide the two parking spaces indicated. The other part of the building would provide storage for the tithe barn and if its use changed in the future in such a way as to amount to development that wasn’t permitted development then an application for a change of use would be required. In terms of windows and rooflights in the east elevation of the building in the future, then windows would be screened by the boundary treatment and there is no first floor within the building which would need to be served by rooflights

13.24 The existing access to the south part of the site via the tithe barn would be closed off as a result of the proposed parking and store building and the landscaping scheme.

A comment has been made regarding repairing the track that would access the dwelling replacing the former bull pen. The highway authority have no objection on highway safety grounds and the state of the track is a matter between the owner of the track and any other parties with an interest in it and is not a matter for the planning process.

14. Summary 14.1 Affording significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criteria i) of Policy SUS2 and having regard to the modest size of the housing land supply shortfall and the positive measures that Councils are taking to address it, it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the Local Plan spatial strategy since the proposal:

· Is located at a settlement at the lowest tier of the spatial hierarchy; to which development in rural areas is not directed, and · The proposal does not re-use existing rural buildings but proposes new build open market housing.

This is considered to be a significant adverse impact, as is the increase in reliance on the car to access services and facilities elsewhere. It is considered that these significantly and demonstrably outweigh the limited benefits of the proposal in terms of its contribution to housing land supply and possibly affordable housing. It has already been identified that there would be little in the way of economic or social benefits resulting from the proposal and that there is a conflict in terms of the adverse environmental impact from occupiers being reliant on a car to access services and facilities. As such it is considered that the proposal is not sustainable development when considered against the Local Plan spatial strategy and the policies in the NPPF as a whole.

Page 28 14.2 In respect of the final bullet point in paragraph 14 of the NPPF the presumption in favour of granting planning permission can be displaced if the proposal is contrary to specific policies in the NPPF which indicate development should be restricted. The recent Supreme Court Judgement also indicated that when applying this bullet point, any proposed development should also be considered against related policies in the Local Plan, which should be given full statutory weight in decision-making.

The development proposes 7 dwellings which would be contrary to paragraph 55 of the NPPF which says that “to promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. For example, where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby. Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as……”. The proposal is considered to represent new isolated dwellings in the countryside having regard to the lack of access to services and facilities and that it does not comply with any of the special circumstances listed in paragraph 55 of the NPPF.

14.3 In addition Policy INT1 of the adopted local plan can be given full statutory weight in the decision-making process. As already identified above the proposal is considered contrary to bullet points 2 and 3 of the policy which reflect the second part of paragraph 14 of the NPPF. In addition it is considered that there is a conflict with the first bullet point which is “the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan.”

The strategic objectives have been listed and considered in the report above. The only objective to which the development may contribute, subject to the establishing the level of housing need, agreeing an appropriate means of affordable housing provision and the completion of a S106 agreement is that some local housing needs may be met through the provision of affordable housing. In respect of the majority of objectives it would not result in any positive contribution. In respect of the objective regarding providing greater opportunities to reduce car use it would in fact conflict, given the reliance of a future occupier on a car to access employment services and facilities.

14.4 The extent to which the proposal therefore positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the Local Plan is limited with the potential gains in affordable housing cancelled out by the adverse impact in respect of the objective regarding reducing car use.

Given the above it is considered that the development does not accord with Policy INT1, Policy SUS2 and the spatial strategy in the adopted local plan. Furthermore it does not accord with the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 29 15. Recommendation 15.1 Refusal is recommended for the following reason:

1 - The proposed development, which would include open market dwellings, by reason of its location outside of a Defined Development Boundary in a village with very limited facilities and services, is considered to be unsustainable with any future occupiers being reliant on a car to access services and facilities. The proposed development fails to meet the social, economic and environmental strands of sustainability as set out within the National Planning Policy Framework and is contrary to Paragraph 55 of the Framework. The resulting benefits of the proposal do not outweigh the resulting harm as set out above. The proposal would therefore be contrary to the Councils spatial strategy for housing and contrary to policies INT1 and SUS2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015).

2 - At the time of application determination there was no Section 106 Agreement in place that satisfactorily dealt with the provision of affordable housing and in the absence of such an Agreement the proposal is contrary to Policy HOUS1 of the West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan

Page 30 Agenda Item 6

Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/17/000654

Application Number: WD/D/17/000654 Outline

Registration Date: 24 March, 2017

Application Site: LAND AT 2 ALINGTON PLACE, MARTINSTOWN, DORCHESTER, DT2 9JH

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 3no. detached dwellings with off road parking

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Cardall

Ward Members: Cllr R Freeman

Case Officer: Rachel Noke

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Refuse

2. Description of development 2.1 This is an outline application for the erection of 3no. detached dwellings with off road parking. All matters are reserved and for consideration is the principle of development only.

2.2 The proposal site totals 0.125 hectares adjacent to the B3159 within the small area known as Mallards’ Green. Martinstown is located approximately 0.5 km to the south-west. To the north-east of the site is Dorchester which is located 1.87 km distant. It is located on either side of a rural lane at the foot of a dip valley leading into the larger Winterborne valley. Large arable fields and pasture are located on the valley slopes to the north and south and these are predominantly bound with post and wire fencing. A public footpath runs directly to the north of the proposed site.

2.3 The buildings within the area are located to the south of the main road (also called Mallards' Green) and are predominantly post-war, brick semi-detached and terraced housing arranged around a single cul-de-sac, with some bungalow housing set-back but facing directly onto the main road. To the north of the main road are two, attached, two-storey brick and stone C19 cottages (Alington Place).

2.4 The arrangement of post-war housing and bungalows is a break from the linear settlement pattern found within this landscape character area and the buildings themselves are a slightly detracting element, due to the use of more modern materials and built form.

Page 31 3. Main planning issues • Outline application • Sustainability and housing land supply • Affordable housing • Community infrastructure levy • Design • Neighbouring amenity • Landscape, trees and AONB • Protected species • Flood risk • Contaminated land • Ministry of Defence

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 No objection in principle. Concern about highway safety with no public footpaths. Parish Council wonder if footpath provision could be made in the proposal together with additional traffic calming measures on the C53 road in the vicinity of the application.

Highway Authority 4.2 The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition :-

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

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

5. Other consultations 5.1 Technical Services (Dorset Councils Partnership)

Comments as follows: With regards to this application i have no objection. The site is at very low risk of surface water flooding according to the EA's flood risk maps although we have no records of flooding incidents at this location.

5.2 Landscape and trees officer (Dorset Councils Partnership) Comments as follows: Strength of landscape character: The strength of character is judged to be moderate. Although the open character of the upland hills remains intact, a variety of historical changes have weakened the characteristic patterns of landscape elements. Smaller settlements retain their dip slope location although habitats in the landscape have become fragmented. Towards the urban fringe of Dorchester and associated road corridors, strength of character is weaker than in the more rural parts of the landscape. Overall landscape condition is moderate and declining.

Key Characteristics: Broad open rolling uplands with convex slopes and incised dry valleys giving way to large open skies and distant horizons. Thin calcareous soils with underlying geology of chalk Complex twisting valley

Page 32 slopes with patches of semi-natural chalk grassland and old hazel coppice stands. Groups of linear broadleaved coverts and trees on upland slopes providing a sense of enclosure. Straight rural lanes with occasional farmsteads with a series of small linear villages of brick and flint, stone, thatch and cob. Large, straight-sided arable and pastoral fields of late 18th or early 19th century enclosures with hazel hedgerows, with post & wire on higher ground. Parkland character with railings and trees on the valley floors Extensive scattering of prehistoric monuments on higher ground.

The small settlement of Mallards' Green is located approximately 500m north-east of Martinstown. It is a settlement typical of the area, being located on either side of rural lane at the foot of a dip valley leading into the larger Winterborne valley. Large arable fields and pasture are located on the valley slopes to the north and south and these are predominantly bound with post and wire fencing. A public footpath runs directly to the north of the proposed site.

The buildings within the settlement are located to the south of the main road (also called Mallards' Green) and are predominantly post-war, brick semi-detached and terraced housing arranged around a single cul-de-sac, with some bungalow housing set-back but facing directly onto the main road. To the north of the main road are two, attached, two-storey brick and stone C19 cottages (Alington Place).

The arrangement of post-war housing and bungalows is a break from the linear settlement pattern found within this landscape character area and the buildings themselves are a slightly detracting element, due to the use of more modern materials and built form.

The proposed building layout is arranged in such a way that the linear settlement pattern of Alington Place will be strengthened. The proposed buildings are set at a similar distance from the road as the C19 cottages and will be fronted with a similar low hedge. I have not seen any proposed building elevations or any suggested materials to comment on. However, if the proposed buildings are designed to a similar scale and form to those found at Alington Place and use brick and stone as facing materials, I suggest that this development would result in a moderate improvement to the character of this settlement.

If the built form and materials suggested above are incorporated into the scheme, I anticipate that effects upon landscape character and visual amenity will not result in any significant impacts.

5.3 Planning Policy Officer (Dorset Councils Partnership) Comments as follows: The main policy issues are: • conflict with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan (Policy SUS2), and • conflict with sustainable development Policy INT1

The proposals need to be considered in the context of the councils not being able to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites (currently 4.63 years). The result is that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date’ in line with paragraph 49 of the NPPF. This has triggered the engagement of paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the

Page 33 application of the second sentence of Policy INT1 of the Local Plan.

In relation to the spatial strategy in the Local Plan, Winterborne St Martin (Martinstown) does not have a Defined Development Boundary (DDB). Therefore development in the area is not supported by policy SUS2. The proposal as also segregated from the main central area of the village which will result in a lack of integration.

The site at 2 Alington Place is located outside the main village of Winterborne St Martin and is located inside the AONB which has a greater level of protection under ENV1 and the AONB management plan.

Winterborne St Martin, does not have a DDB, resulting in the site being located in an area where development is strictly controlled having regard to the need to protect the countryside and environmental constraints. Policy SUS2 states that development outside DDB’s is strictly controlled and residential development is restricted to the re-use of existing rural buildings. The proposed development does not include the re-use of existing buildings and therefore is unsupported by policy SUS2 in relation to development in rural areas outside the DDB’s.

Although Policy SUS2 restricts development outside of DDBs, limited weight should be attached to this policy as it should be considered out of date, due to the fact that the Local Authority does not have a 5 year housing land supply.

The potential development is separated away from the main heart of the village. The proposal of additional housing would secure some economic gains, however these would be outweighed by the harm to the social aspects of the new development as the location of the proposed development will not allow for suitable integration into the existing settlement of Martinstown resulting in the scheme being uncompliant with policy INT1. Therefore limited weight can be attached to SUS2 as this time, however policy INT1 is still relevant.

The site was also submitted as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2016. Although the SHLAA is not policy, the site was deemed unacceptable in the assessment due to the site being segregated from the main centre of Martinstown.

The location of the scheme is segregated from the main village with limited links to the amenities in the centre of the village and will not allow sufficient integration resulting in the site conflicting with policy INT1. Martinstown also does not have a DDB and therefore the site of the development is in a strictly controlled area. This results in the site being unsupported by policy Sus2.

The site is also located in the AONB which is protected under policy ENV1 and through the Dorset AONB management plan, possible impacts of the development on the landscape will be detailed further by the Senior Landscape Architect.

5.4 Environmental Health (Dorset Councils Partnership) Comments as follows: No comment.

Page 34 5.5 Ministry of Defence Comments as follows: No safeguarding objections.

6. Other representations 6.1 At the time of writing there have been 6 representations raising the following material issues:

Support (5 representations) · A pavement should be included on any consent · Overall support but raised highway concerns

Objection (1 representation) · Overlooking

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

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History – None

9. The Development Plan

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

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

INT1. PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ENV1. LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST

ENV2. WILDLIFE AND HABITATS

ENV5. FLOOD RISK

ENV9. POLLUTION AND CONTAMINATED LAND

ENV10. THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING

ENV11. THE PATTERN OF STREETS AND SPACES

ENV12. THE DESIGN AND POSITIONING OF BUILDINGS

ENV15. EFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND

ENV16. AMENITY

Page 35 SUS1. THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC AND HOUSING GROWTH

SUS2. DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT

HOUS1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING

HOUS3. OPEN MARKET HOUSING MIX

HOUS6. OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

COM7. CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK

COM9. PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT

National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In terms of decision-taking this means:

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

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

· any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole;

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

The NPPF also states that:

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

Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work pro actively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. (Para. 187) Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be covered in the Planning issues section of the report.

Section Subject

Page 36 1 Achieving sustainable development 2. Ensuring the vitality of town centres 3. Supporting a prosperous rural economy 4. Promoting sustainable transport 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Planning Practice Guidance

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

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

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

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009).

WDDC Landscape Character Area – Dorchester Downs - Feb 2009

Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014-19

11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 None

12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 Conservation Area Appraisals - None

13. Planning issues 13.1 Outline application This application is an outline application with all matters reserved. The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 defines those matters which can be reserved by an outline permission as follows:

reserved matters in relation to an outline planning permission, or an application for such permission, means any of the following matters in respect of which details have not been given in the application—

(a) access;

Page 37 (b) appearance; (c) landscaping; (d) layout; and (e) scale;

Therefore none of these issues are for consideration as part of this application.

13.2 Sustainability and housing land supply

The main issue is the conflict of the proposal with the spatial strategy of the Local Plan (Policy SUS2) and the impacts of the proposed development. In respect of the spatial strategy in the Local Plan West Dorset District Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites. In a recent appeal decision at Ryme Road, Yetminster (Appeal Ref: APP/F1230/W/16/3145484) the Inspector concluded that the Councils have 4.63 years of supply across the local plan area. The result is that ‘relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date’ in line with paragraph 49 of the NPPF. This then triggers the engagement of paragraph 14 of the NPPF and the application of the second sentence of Policy INT1 of the Local Plan.

13.3 A recent (May 2017) Supreme court judgement (Suffolk Coastal District Council Hopkins Homes Ltd and Richborough Estates Partnership LLP v Cheshire East Borough Council (2017) UKSC 37) concluded that paragraph 49 of the NPPF essentially acts as a ‘trigger’ for the engagement of paragraph 14, in situations where a local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of housing sites. In the light of the current housing land supply position in West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland, it is accepted that paragraph 14 has been triggered in relation to this application. The Supreme Court also ruled that paragraph 49 should only apply to ‘housing supply policies’, rather than to other policies which may interact with housing supply policies and so have some effect on their operation. In light of this narrow interpretation in the judgement, the relevant policies for the supply of housing in the Local Plan, which are considered to be out-of-date in relation to this application, are Policies SUS1 and SUS2.

13.4 The Supreme Court judgement also re-asserts the primacy of the development plan. In determining this application, the overall planning judgement on this proposal needs to reflect the primacy of the Local Plan given by statute and the status of the NPPF as a material consideration, which should not displace or distort the statutory scheme.

13.5 The application needs to be determined under the general provisions in the second part of Paragraph 14, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or meaning that permission should be granted unless the presumption can be displaced on either or both of the grounds set out in the second part of that paragraph.

13.6 In the penultimate bullet of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the presumption could be displaced on the grounds that the ‘adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits’ of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF and against Local Plan policies. In cases where this applies, consideration needs to be given to the extent to

Page 38 which the weight given to any restrictive Local Plan Policy (whether out of date or not) should be reduced.

Under the final bullet point in paragraph 14 of the NPPF the presumption could be displaced if the proposal is contrary to ‘specific policies’ in the NPPF. The Supreme Court judgement indicates that when applying this bullet, any proposed development should also be considered against related policies in the Local Plan, which should be given full statutory weight in decision-making.

13.7 The Supreme Court supported the view that the weight to be given to policies (including out-of-date policies) ‘is, as ever, a matter for the decision-maker’. In the decision on the recent appeal at Ryme Road, Yetminster the Inspector considered Policy SUS2 to be out-of-date however afforded significant weight to the spatial strategy set out in criterion i). The Inspector did however recognise that criterion iii) could not be afforded full weight because it ‘restricts development outside of the DDB’ thus limiting the supply of housing.

13.8 Policy SUS2 of the adopted local plan seeks to direct development to the main settlements and to ‘strictly control’ development outside DDBs. Policy SUS2 titled Distribution of Development states

‘i) Development will be distributed according to the following settlement hierarchy, with a greater proportion of development at the larger and more sustainable settlements. The main towns of Dorchester and Weymouth (of which Chickerell and parts of Littlemoor form outlying parts) will be the highest priority locations for new development; • Elsewhere in the plan area, the market and coastal towns of Beaminster, Bridport, Lyme Regis, Portland and Sherborne and the village of Crossways will be a focus for future development; • Development in rural areas will be directed to the settlements with defined development boundaries, and will take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement. Settlements with no defined development boundary may also have some growth to meet their local needs.

ii) Within the defined development boundaries residential, employment and other development to meet the needs of the local area will normally be permitted...’

The site is outside of the DDB and no Neighbourhood Plan or other document has identified that there is a local need for housing in this location.

13.9 Some development can be supported outside of DDB’s and are considered exception sites. The Local Plan has identified occasions when exception sites can be supported within policy SUS2 which states

‘iii) Outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints, and be restricted to: .. • open market housing through the re-use of existing rural buildings;… • specific allocations in a development plan document and associated landscape and infrastructure requirements…’

The site is outside of a defined development boundary where development is strictly controlled. The proposal is for 3 new build units of open market

Page 39 housing and does not seek to reuse an existing building and the site is not a specific allocation site. There are other exemption criteria with occupation specific requirements and the proposal does not meet these exceptions either. As such the proposal fails to meet the criteria of this policy. As stated by the Inspector at the recent Supreme Court judgement criterion iii) could not be afforded full weight because it ‘restricts development outside of the DDB’ thus limiting the supply of housing. Given the lack of housing land supply these other locations can now be considered provided that they meet sustainability criteria.

13.10 In respect of the penultimate bullet of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, the presumption could be displaced on the grounds that the adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF and against Local Plan policies. In respect of this point consideration should be given to the three dimensions to sustainable development identified in the NPPF. Paragraph 7 states the following ‘There are three dimensions to sustainable development: economic, social and environmental. These dimensions give rise to the need for the planning system to perform a number of roles: ● an economic role – contributing to building a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right type is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth and innovation; and by identifying and coordinating development requirements, including the provision of infrastructure; ● a social role – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by providing the supply of housing required to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by creating a high quality built environment, with accessible local services that reflect the community’s needs and support its health, social and cultural well-being; and ● an environmental role – contributing to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; and, as part of this, helping to improve biodiversity, use natural resources prudently, minimise waste and pollution, and mitigate and adapt to climate change including moving to a low carbon economy.’

Each of these elements shall therefore be addressed in turn below.

13.11 There are a number of environmental issues that need to be considered which are visual and landscape impact, and reducing car use. Some of these issues will be addressed in the remainder of the report however the main discussion as part of this section is the reliance on the car and a move towards a low carbon economy. The site is located outside any village or town considered to be sustainable in local plan by virtue of a DDB or village of 200+ population. The nearest village is 0.6km metres which requires walking down a fast moving lane and along a public footpath beyond. The local residents have highlighted concerns of fast moving traffic along this lane and have requested traffic calming measures if the scheme was approved. These works are not currently planned to be undertaken and cannot be required as part of the scheme by the highways officer. Notwithstanding this fact, the village of Martinstown has not been identified as a village of 200+ population in accordance with the list in Policy SUS3. As part of the settlement hierarchy criteria in Policy SUS2 the site is considered to be open countryside without suitable access to a sufficient supply of amenities that are within walking distance. The Design and Access statement refers to Martinstown as a large

Page 40 village with a populous of 780 persons estimated in 2013 and having a public House, The Brewers Arms, a village shop with post office, a small café, and village hall. Whilst these facilities go someway to provide facilities for future occupants it is not considered sufficient to be included within the villages listed as part of the settlement hierarchy of 200+ and there are many other villages within the district that have been included which would be more suitable. As such the location and village are within the category of open countryside and development in such locations should be resisted in accordance with the local plan. As such the proposal is considered to be an unsustainable location forming an unsustainable pattern of development on this point.

13.12 The site is served by public transport however travel is sporadic with journeys to Dorchester 4 times in the morning from 06:00 to 08:30 and journey from Dorchester 5 times in the afternoon from 15:30 to 18:30 and potentially 1 journey to Weymouth in the morning. The scheme therefore does not uphold the environmental criteria for sustainability and does not represent a sustainable pattern of development due the site’s location outside of any village that has been identified as being suitable within the settlement hierarchy.

And in a recent appeal decision for two dwellings at Marshwood to the west of the district (appeal ref: APP/F1230/W/16/3146642) the Inspector commented “the village does contain some facilities such as the nearby public house as well as a school and church around 370m to the east. In terms of the distance from the site, these facilities are within walking or cycling range. However, there is not a continuous footpath or cycle lane linking the site with them. I found that vehicles driving by the junction with Bottle Lane did so at substantial speed although I did note that the B3165 is theoretically limited to 30mph at this point. Walking out of Bottle Lane along the roadside just as far as the nearby Bottle Inn required occasional standing on an informal verge which had a gulley alongside it. I didn't feel very safe when I did this because of the speed and proximity of the traffic but also because the verge is uneven. I do not consider that walking to these facilities would be very safe. Other facilities exist further away. Reference is made to a shop and garage and there are some limited bus services to nearby settlements. Hawkchurch is around 3 miles away and Axminster which is even further away. However the appellant accepts that the site would lead to further private vehicle journeys and I agree that it would inevitably do so. Whilst the site is close to some residential properties and other buildings, isolation in the context of the Framework also relates to the degree of separation from infrastructure and community facilities. Apart from the public house, the site is isolated from most day to day facilities."

The above appeal decision reinforces the point made about access to services and facilities from the application site being considered here and that the site can be considered to be isolated in the context of paragraph 55 having regard to the degree of separation from infrastructure and community facilities.

13.13 With regard to economic considerations there would be limited short term economic benefits resulting from the proposal in the form of providing work for contractors and suppliers involved within the construction phase. There may also be some longer term benefits by supporting local services in nearby

Page 41 village of Martinstown. However it is considered that there would not be any significant long term economic benefits resulting from the proposed development.

13.14 In terms of social considerations this is an application for a 3 dwellings and is therefore considered to not make a significant contribution to increasing housing land supply. The dwellings would be open market and not affordable housing so there would be no benefit in this regard. There may be a limited social benefit in terms of the occupancy of the dwellings supporting the local services in Martinstown however the location of the proposed development would not allow for suitable integration into the existing settlement of Martinstown resulting in the scheme being uncompliant with policy INT1. The site was deemed to be unacceptable as part of the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) 2016. Although the SHLAA is not policy, the site was deemed unacceptable in the assessment due to the site being segregated from the main centre of Martinstown. The location of the scheme, segregated from the main village with limited links to the amenities in the centre of the village would not allow sufficient integration resulting in the site conflicting with policy INT1 for reasons of a detrimental social impact.

13.15 The proposal is considered to fail all three tests of sustainability of economic, environmental and social criteria as identified in paragraph 7 of the NPPF. Therefore in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF the proposal would have adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole. This recommendation is on balance based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply.

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

13.17 In the light of changes to national policy and guidance, affordable housing contributions will not normally be sought on sites of 10 units or fewer (or with a maximum gross combined floor space of 10,000 square metres of less), outside designated rural areas or 5 units of fewer inside designated rural areas such as the AONB. As this site falls below these thresholds an affordable housing contribution is not required.

13.18 Community Infrastructure Levy The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per sq. m. CIL rate. The development proposal is CIL liable. A levy is not raised because the proposal is for an outline planning permission and full details are unknown at this stage but it would be raised at any reserved matters stage.

13.19 Design The proposal is for outline consent only. However the indicative layout plan shows that 3 dwellings could be achieved in the location proposed and be

Page 42 designed to be characteful dwellings.

13.20 Neighbouring amenity The proposed development would have not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties of 2 Alington Road or Holly Lodge due to separation distances.

13.21 Landscape, trees and AONB The strength of character of this local area is judged to be moderate and declining. The small area of Mallards' Green is located approximately 500m north-east of Martinstown. It is a settlement typical of the area, being located on either side of rural lane at the foot of a dip valley leading into the larger Winterborne valley. The proposed building layout is arranged in such a way that continues the linear settlement pattern of Alington Place would be strengthened. The proposed buildings are set at a similar distance from the road as the C19 cottages and will be fronted with a similar low hedge. If the built form and materials suggested above are incorporated into the scheme the landscape character and visual amenities would be maintained.

13.22 Access and parking The proposal would not compromise road safety (other than it would be car reliant for future occupiers) and there is sufficient parking. This is subject to a condition suggested by Highways.

13.23 Flood risk Having regard to the submitted information it is considered that the proposal would not increase the risk of flooding.

13.24 Contaminated land Having regard to the submitted plans it is considered that the proposal would not impact on contaminated land.

13.25 Ministry of Defence Having regard to the submitted plans it is considered that the proposal would not impact on ministry of defence activities or land.

14. Summary 14.1 The site is not considered to be in a sustainable location as it is not within a DDB, a village of 200+, is not a specific allocation site and is not an exemption site as outlined in policy SUS2. In light of the limited weight able to be afforded to policy SUS2 due to the lack of housing land supply the proposal is also not considered to meet sustainability criteria in respect of the penultimate bullet of paragraph 14 of the NPPF, due to the adverse impacts of the proposal that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme when assessed against the policies in the NPPF in respect of the three dimensions of sustainable development identified in the NPPF: economic, social and environmental.

14.2 On environmental grounds the nearest village is 0.6km metres which is considered to be open countryside without suitable access to a sufficient supply of amenities that are within walking distance in terms of settlement heirarchy and requires walking down a fast moving lane and along a public footpath beyond with limited public transport provision. In accordance with

Page 43 policy SUS2 the site is considered to be open countryside and there are many other villages within the district that have been included which would be more suitable. The scheme therefore does not uphold the environmental criteria for sustainability and does not represent a sustainable pattern of development due the site’s location outside of any village that has been identified as being suitable within the settlement hierarchy. As such the proposal is considered to be an unsustainable location forming an unsustainable pattern of development on this point.

14.3 With regard to economic considerations there would be limited short term economic benefits with some longer term benefits by supporting local services in nearby village of Martinstown however it is considered that there would not be any significant long term economic benefits resulting from the proposed development.

14.4 The application for 3 dwellings is considered to not make a significant contribution to increasing housing land supply with no social benefit from the lack of affordable housing. The location of the scheme, segregated from the main village with limited links to the amenities in the centre of the village would not allow sufficient integration resulting in the site conflicting with policy INT1 for reasons of a detrimental social impact.

14.5 Therefore in accordance with paragraph 14 of the NPPF the proposal would have adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole, specifically paragraph 7. This recommendation is on balance based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Refusal; is recommended for the following reason.

i. The provision of 3 open market dwellings in this location is considered to be an unsustainable pattern of development due the site’s location outside of any settlement that has a Defined Development Boundary or village that has been identified as being suitable within the settlement hierarchy. The proposed development is not considered to be sustainable development as it is not accessible to services and facilities other than by car and there are no environmental, social or economic considerations that individually or cumulatively outweigh the harm caused and the conflict with sustainable development. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies SUS2 and INT1 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and is considered to fail all 3 tests of sustainability in accordance with paragraphs 7, 14 and 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 44 Agenda Item 7

Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/16/002726

Application Number: WD/D/16/002726 Full

Registration Date: 11 January, 2017

Application Site: FIELD SOUTH OF MEADENS CARAVAN SITE, KNIGHTS IN THE BOTTOM, CHICKERELL

Proposal: Erect animal feed store

Applicant: Mr Thomas

Ward Members: Cllr T Bartlett, Cllr I Gardner, Cllr J Dunseith

Case Officer: Rachel Noke

This application is reported back to Committee following its deferral at your April 2017 Cttee meeting at which you sought further information.

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve with conditions

2. Description of development 2.1 The application field is located in the open countryside and is accessed through an existing group of caravans forming Meadens caravan site. No other agricultural buildings are sited in this location. The site lies 707 metres outside of the development boundary of Chickerell within a hamlet called Knights in the Bottom. The site is within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is a protected landscape.

2.2 The proposal is for the erection of an agricultural store which is required to house the feed, hay and straw bales that is required for this field as well the 50 hectares of grazing land that the applicant rents locally but is unable to store supplies on.

3. Main planning issues The main planning issues relevant to this application are:

· Principle of the development; · Design and impact on the character of the area · Impact in neighbouring amenity.

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Chickerell Town Council Chickerell Town Council recommends refusal of this application due to the layout and density of the building. They recommend that an agricultural

Page 45 consultant needs to confirm that there is a viable agricultural need for the building.

Chesil Bank Parish Council (Neighbouring parish) 1. The application site is within the Dorset Heritage Coast and Dorset AONB 2. The development is not considered to be sustainable 3. The area of the application is .77ha (1.9acres) and will be further reduced in size by the new building and tree screen planting 4. It appears to be far too small an area for an agricultural enterprise. 5. The viability of the proposed enterprise is entirely reliant on rental land and there is no information supplied on the tenure of the rental land or whether this land is anywhere near the small paddock in question 6. If granted it would create unnecessary traffic movement to the proposed development. The only access to the development is through a residential caravan park owned by the applicant

Highway Authority 4.2 No comment.

4.3 Natural England No comment.

5. Other consultations 5.1 WDDC Landscape Officer On the previous application the landscape officer commented WD/D/16/002217. The Site is located within the north-eastern corner of a sloping small-scale rectilinear pastoral field to the south of the B3157. The field lies within the South Dorset Ridge and Vale character area within the Dorset AONB/Heritage Coast. Scrubby hedging delineates the Site along the eastern/southern and western boundaries. At the base of the slope (northern aspect) there is a small-scale caravan/chalet site with access off the B3157.

The proposal comprises the erection of an animal feed store (barn). The building would be orientated north-south and would be clad in green profiled metal sheeting with a brown corrugated fibre cement roof. Indicative tree planting has been indicated to the north of the building.

With regards the location within the AONB the landscape is judged to have a ‘medium’ strength of character and to be in a ‘moderate’ and ‘stable’ condition. The overall objective should be to “restore the characteristic features of grasslands and field boundaries along the coast. Re-create and improve the urban fringe landscapes with new woodland planting, greenspace provision and reduce the impact of urban fringe and visitor based landuses”.

In terms of the AONB planning guidelines the following would be relevant: Conserve and enhance the sweeping views of the coast. Conserve and enhance the open character of coastal roads and view points… Ensure new agricultural dwellings and barns enhance the local character and are sited away from open views and skylines.

Page 46 The proposal to erect a barn in this elevated location would conflict with the following objectives and policies (AONB’s Management Plan); Objective L1: Conserve and enhance the AONB and the character and quality of its distinctive landscapes and associated features. Objective L2: Conserve and enhance the AONB by removing, avoiding and reducing intrusive and degrading features.

On this basis I would conclude that the proposals fail the explicit policy test in local plan policy ENV1 (i) “Development which would harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the AONB or Heritage Coast….will not be permitted”. (ii) “Development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from, and where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character”.

Turning to ENV10 (i) and (iii) which seek to conserve local character and identity , the proposal is not considered to conserve, enhance or restore locally distinctive landscape features: contribute positively to the maintenance of local distinctiveness; nor is it considered to respond to the character of the Site and its surroundings.

In conclusion the proposal in its current form is likely to result in adverse effects on the character and appearance of the AONB and would conflict with the objectives and policies of the AONB Management Plan. This in combination with the failure of a number of local plan landscape policy tests noted above would result in reasonable grounds for refusal of the application as submitted.

If the Applicant wished to pursue with a proposal for a feed store in this location – I would recommend re-siting the building at the base of the slope, adjacent to the existing built development, as this would be less visually sensitive from public rights of ways within the AONB and less harmful to the character and natural beauty of the designated area.

No comments have been received on this application however the comments from the previous application are explicit.

5.2 Reading agricultural consultant As noted, the following comments are based solely on the documentation submitted with the application including a brief agricultural appraisal prepared by Brimble, Lea & Partners, Gillingham. I have also apprised myself of the information submitted with an earlier application for an agricultural building on the property (Ref WD/D/16/002217, withdrawn 01-12-2016). Background 1. The application seeks permission to erect an agricultural building measuring some 8m x 11m (giving a footprint of 88m2). (For avoidance of doubt it is noted that the Drawing number and date on the on-line plan 16/149/02, October 2016 is identical to that submitted with withdrawn application WD/D/16/002217 and may lead to confusion). 2. It would appear (from the plans) that the building would be clad (presumably with plasticised sheets) on all four sides, but with an

Page 47 opening on the west elevation for access. There is no indication that opening would be enclosed (no gates or doors are shown) which is unusual given its orientation towards the prevailing wind and weather. 3. The agricultural appraisal indicates that the applicant is proposing to establish a Boer goat breeding and rearing herd with, initially, 20 does and 3 bucks rising to 50 goats over a 3-year period. (The suggestion that goats produce 2 kids every six months (4 kids per annum) appears excessive.) 4. The goat enterprise is to be based at the application site which is referred to as a 2-acre grassland field owned by the applicant. (I can confirm the measurement of the field). The appraisal suggests that local residents will “keep an eye on the goats”. Additionally, the appraisal indicates that the applicant is intending to rent a further 50 acres (20ha) from a Mr Chips at Portesham, some 3.5 miles (5kms) to the west. This land is described as: “currently not farmed and is requiring some management. This land is generally hill land and is ideal goat country. The goats will manage the land keep the gorse from growing”. 5. The appraisal indicates that the proposed barn is required: “…to store hay and straw for the goats and for fodder (goat mix/course mix). In addition, there is a need for general storage, for example electric fencing, chain saws (for hedge management), a quad bike not only to drive to Portesham and inspect the goats on the hill land, but also to be able to affix a harrow and other land management equipment to it”. Appraisal 6. In the absence of a site visit it is impossible to be determinative. However, I have no reason to doubt the veracity of the information provided by Brimble, Lea & Partners. This states: · that the applicant owns the land; · is intent on renting a further 20ha nearby; · intends to establish a Boer goat herd; · seeks permission for a barn to accommodate the feed needs of the goats. 7. The reasons given for the barn are very clearly set out in the Brimble Lea report and exclude goat housing, which I consider odd. In my experience, Boer goats are often housed, fed on hay and straw, and let out to graze periodically – a point to which I return below, albeit the applicant may choose a more extensive grazing model. 8. However, the storage needs of goats are not large. Standard texts indicate that a female goat requires 20kg of concentrate feed for herself, plus 57kg for the kids – a total of 77kg per doe per annum. Thus 20 does would require a total of 1.5 tonnes of feed – or 1-2 pallets. 9. The text continues: “…most herds are run extensively outdoors. Shelter must be supplied at all times and buildings are required for kidding and

Page 48 possibly final finishing. Stocking rate of 10 to 25 does and progeny per hectare (4-10 per acre)”. 10. The proposed building at 88m2 thus appears excessive simply for storing the concentrate feed needed for 20 does. That stated, the seeming lack of space for the goats is also of concern. 11. To put this holding and structure in context, I was involved with a planning application and appeal some 15 years ago looking at a smallholding near Maidenhead that measured 1.48ha (3.7 acres), of which approximately 0.5ha (1.2 acres) was grassland available for grazing. The applicant sought permission for an agricultural barn measuring approximately 140m2 to enable the development of a goat herd with 50 does and I noted than that:

“Goats have a yard space requirement of 1.75m2 per female adult, 2.3m2 for the male, with area ranging from 0.3m2 to 1.0m2 for the growing kids. The budgets for the unit state that the does would have 1-2 kids at every kidding and thus it is calculated that there would be a space requirement of: 50 does plus 1 billy 90 m2 50-100 kids 15m2 at weaning up to 100 m2 (at point of sale) These space requirements would vary up to 190m2 and at the latter end would clearly exceed the area of building available. Although there are possibilities to provide alternative forms of accommodation, such as temporary field shelters and extensions to the existing building, or to sell surplus young kids, these possibilities have not been identified outlined in the proposals and thus there is some doubt as to the ability of the applicant to develop the unit as proposed”. 12. If these figures are simply extrapolated to the Knights in the Bottom site – and the barn is, in fact, intended to provide accommodation for the goats - then there could be a space requirement of: 20 does x 1.75m2 35m2 1 buck x 2.3m2 2.3m2 20-40 kids x 0.3-1.0 6-40m2 This generates a space requirement of 43-77m2 – and is within the space range available in the barn. 13. However, if the goat numbers rise to 50 does the barn will not provide sufficient space. 14. Overall, I consider the inclusion of the fencing, general storage, quad bike and associated machinery increases the space required on this holding such that 88m2 does not appear excessive. Any agricultural business requires undercover storage to protect stores and machinery a) from the elements and b) from theft. This structure does not appear excessive to the needs of this smallholding.

Page 49 15. Of more concern, but outside the scope of this appraisal, is the lack of accommodation on the holding, and the possible need for a dwelling in the future. However, I have been involved with a number of Boer goat appeals in the past and a benchmark has been established that 100 does is required to justify a full-time worker to live on a holding. I hope these comments and observations are helpful.

5.3 DCC Mineral Officer The application site lies within the Mineral Safeguarding Area (comprising safeguarded building stone in this area) delineated in the Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Minerals Strategy (adopted 6 May 2014). Policies SG1 and SG2 of the Minerals Strategy seek to avoid the unnecessary sterilisation of minerals in the ground. Where there is an overriding need for the development to proceed, opportunities for prior extraction of the mineral in advance of the built development may be considered. However, given the scale of the proposed development and the delay that assessment of the mineral resource and then possible prior extraction would entail, the Mineral Planning Authority consider that in this case the safeguarding requirement can be waived, and have no objection to this proposal

6. Other representations 6.1 1 representation has been received with the following comments

It has come to my notice that a revised application for a 'feed store' South of Meadens Caravan Park has been resubmitted. Whilst the new plan shows the building in a different position and of a much reduced size I would agree with the comment made by Chickerell Town Council and would question the need for a feed store on this land at all. The applicant States that he rents 50 acres of farmland and therefore this, in my opinion, would be a much more appropriate place to store feed, cutting down the impact of transportation on the environment and avoiding any increased highways issues. The applicant States that he is unable to store feed on his 50 acre site but gives no valid explanation as to why. I do not feel the applicant can justify the need for a new building considering he has recently sold a building in a neighbouring parish that would have been ideal for such purposes. I await the comments of the ANOB as suggested by Natural England.

Should the council deem it necessary to pass this planning application then I reiterate my previous comment that any such building should have a strict agricultural tie imposed upon it, Robert Dunn,Lower Manor Farm, Mr Steve Vine, Moor Farm

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

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History

Page 50 App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer WD/D/16/002 FUL Erect animal feed store W 01 RN 217 Decemb er 2016

9. Relevant Local Plan and National Policy

Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant:

· ECON9 – New agricultural buildings · ENV1 – Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest · ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting · ENV12 – The design and positioning of buildings · ENV15 – Efficient and appropriate use of land · ENV16 – Amenity

National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Part 3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy

Part 7: Requiring good design

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.

Part 11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Decision taking: Para 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.

Para 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

WDDC Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)

West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009 Site is within the South Dorset Ridge and Vale LCA

DORSET AONB MANAGEMENT PLAN 2014-2019

Page 51 10. Planning issues 10.1 Principle of development The proposed barn is for the storage of feed, straw and hay bales to serve the field and other rented land. Policy ECON9 states 'The development of new agricultural buildings, or extension of existing buildings, will be permitted where the development is necessary for the purposes of agriculture on the unit or locally where facilities are to be shared, and there are no existing buildings on the unit which are capable of re-use. The scale, siting, design and external appearance of the buildings should be designed to minimise adverse impact on the landscape character and residential amenity.' The storage is required to support the holding. It has been requested at a previous committee that an agricultural appraisal be submitted with the proposal and reviewed by an Agricultural Consultant. This information was submitted and assessed. The findings are that the application seeks permission to erect an agricultural building measuring some 8m x 11m with proposals to establish a Boer goat breeding and rearing herd with, initially, 20 does and 3 bucks rising to 50 goats over a 3-year period. A 2-acre grassland field owned by the applicant with intentions to rent a further 50 acres (20ha) from a Mr Chips at Portesham, some 3.5 miles (5kms) to the west. The appraisal indicates that the proposed barn is required:“…to store hay and straw for the goats and for fodder (goat mix/course mix). In addition, there is a need for general storage, for example electric fencing, chain saws (for hedge management), a quad bike not only to drive to Portesham and inspect the goats on the hill land, but also to be able to affix a harrow and other land management equipment to it”. The reasons given for the barn are very clearly set out in the Brimble Lea report and exclude goat housing, which I consider odd. In my experience, Boer goats are often housed, fed on hay and straw, and let out to graze periodically – a point to which I return below, albeit the applicant may choose a more extensive grazing model. However, the storage needs of goats are not large. Standard texts indicate that a female goat requires 20kg of concentrate feed for herself, plus 57kg for the kids – a total of 77kg per doe per annum. Thus 20 does would require a total of 1.5 tonnes of feed – or 1-2 pallets. “…most herds are run extensively outdoors. Shelter must be supplied at all times and buildings are required for kidding and possibly final finishing. Stocking rate of 10 to 25 does and progeny per hectare (4-10 per acre)”. The proposed building at 88m2 thus appears excessive simply for storing the concentrate feed needed for 20 does. That stated, the seeming lack of space for the goats is also of concern. If these figures are simply extrapolated to the Knights in the Bottom site – and the barn is, in fact, intended to provide accommodation for the goats - then there could be a space requirement of:20 does x 1.75m2 = 35m2 , 1 buck x 2.3m2 = 2.3m2 , 20-40 kids x 0.3-1.0 6-40m2. This generates a space requirement of 43-77m2 and is within the space range available in the barn.However, if the goat numbers rise to 50 does the barn will not provide sufficient space.

The conclusions are therefore that the inclusion of the fencing, general storage, quad bike and associated machinery increases the space required on this holding such that 88m2 does not appear excessive. Any agricultural

Page 52 business requires undercover storage to protect stores and machinery a) from the elements and b) from theft. This structure does not appear excessive to the needs of this smallholding. Concerns were raised about a lack of accomodation for the full-time worker to live on a holding but the numbers suggested would not require one and neither is this the application before us. As such the principle of the proposal is acceptable as submitted.

10.2 Design and impact on the character of the AONB Policy ECON9 of the Local Plan also stipulates that the scale, siting, design and external appearance of structures should be designed to minimise adverse impact on the landscape character within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). This stance is also in line with other policies in the Local Plan, concerning design of buildings and impact within the area character. As written in the previous comments from the landscape officer, the proposal was not acceptable in the previous location at the top of the slope however no objection has been raised to the proposal as proposed in this location and is the location suggested by the landscape officer on the previous application. The design and scale of the proposal which would be of a typical agricultural style, would be in keeping within the agricultural setting, and would be reasonable for the agricultural business and is well grouped with the existing strucutres. The proposal would be reasonable in scale and typical in design, the building would not be visually obtrusive within the immediate setting, wider AONB landscape. As such, the proposed development would conserve the landscape character of the AONB in accordance with local policy and para 115 of the NPPF and ECON9 of the local plan.

10.3 Impact on neighbouring amenity The barn is adjacent to residential properties but would not result in detrimental harm due to the relatively small scale and use of the barn for storage as opposed to livestock. This should be conditioned to remain as such.

11. Summary 11.1 The proposed development complies with national and local planning policy and is recommended for approval.

12. Recommendation 12.1 Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

Page 53 3 The building hereby approved shall be used for agricultural storage purposes only and no other use.

REASON. To define the permission.

Page 54 Agenda Item 8

Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/17/000190

Application Number: WD/D/17/000190 Full

Registration Date: 17 February, 2017

Application Site: ANCREN, COAST ROAD, BURTON BRADSTOCK, BRIDPORT, DT6 4RN

Proposal: Demolition of existing dwelling & erection of replacement dwelling

Applicant: Mr & Mrs T Markland

Ward Members: Cllr J Russell

Case Officer: Rachel Noke

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approval

2. Description of development 2.1 The proposal seeks the demolition of the existing dwelling & erection of a replacement dwelling on site. It would be a more modern 3 bedroom dwelling.

2.2 The application site is located in an isolated location amongst other dwellings mid-way between the village of Burton Bradstock (to the west) and Swyre (to the east) and accessed from the B3157 coast road which links Bridport and Weymouth. Ancren is a modestly proportioned single storey dwelling forming part of a small, isolated grouping of residential properties which contain some recent redevelopments all of which are in a rural area of locally designated Heritage Coast and the Bexington Coast Landscape Character Area. The site also lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and as such is afforded the highest level of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The application site measures 35m increasing to 40m in width and 42m to 45m on a sloping depth.The application site is bounded on the coastal views by significant tree presence.

3. Main planning issues · Principle of development and design · Community infrastructure levy · Amenity · Design, Landscape and AONB · Access and parking · Protected species and biodiversity · Protected trees · Minerals safeguarding

Page 55 4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Parish Council

It is the view of the Parish Council that the proposed development will cause significant harm to the character and appearance of the ‘undeveloped’ coastline, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Jurassic Coast UNESCO World Heritage Site.

In coming to our decision we have considered our objections to and the Inspectors Report on the previous planning application (Appeal Ref: APP/F1230/A/14/2214314 - Ancren, Coast Road, Burton Bradstock, Bridport DT6 4RN), specifically assessing how the new proposal has responded to the issues of size, area, height, scale, massing and visual appearance of dwellings that led the Inspector to refuse the appeal.

In the Appeal statement the inspector was clear that in considering a range of factors he concluded that control of significant alterations in size, area, height, scale, massing and visual appearance of dwellings were required if harm to the character and appearance of the AONB was to be avoided. The Inspector specifically stated that ‘great weight’ needed to be given to the conserving landscape and scenic beauty (NPPF paragraph 115).

It is the view of the Burton Bradstock Parish Council that whilst the new proposal (Application WD/D/17/000190) has gone some way to addressing the concerns identified by the Inspector – the height, building footprint and mass are reduced from the previous proposal. Nevertheless, the scale of the proposed dwelling house at (floorspace measured at some 228 square metres) is more than 2½ times that of the current dwelling (floorspace 86 square metres as existing), and has a southern frontage that is extensively glazed . The overall scale of the development and the visual impact of the design are not consistent with avoiding harm to the purpose of the AONB designation and of conserving the special secluded and rural characteristics of this sensitive stretch of coast corridor.

The Parish Council is particularly concerned that about the retention of trees and shrubs, that currently screens the development site, cannot be relied upon for the long term. The Inspector’s report says: “My observations indicate that the lower storey would be largely screened by the existing vegetation, even allowing for the removal of some of the trees. However, the long-term retention of these trees and shrubs cannot be relied upon. They may be removed where not protected by a Tree Preservation Order, or may become damaged or diseased. There is a real possibility over the long term that the loss of trees and other vegetation would open up wider views of the proposed development from the south. The extensive use of glazing to the south elevation, which would tend to catch and reflect the light, would further increase the prominence of the development.”

The Inspector’s views are accurate, and are exemplified by experience from other developments around Othona , most recently at Burton Mere, where trees have been removed over time, opening up wider views from the south/ and the South West Coast Path National Trail – see below.

Page 56 The extensive use of glass and the balcony areas in the proposed development would catch the eye and emphasize the prominence of the development.

It is this prominence that is the final concern of the BBPC. We feel that a significant factor in determining this new proposal should be the cumulative visual impact of a number of large buildings with prominent areas of glazing presented across the greater Othona site. From Burton Mere in the west via this development to the Huff house in the east, each development adds to the level of visual detraction that erodes the special character of the coastal corridor.

We feel strongly that the harm to the character and appearance of the AONB and World Heritage Site outweighs any benefit from a larger, modern development on this site.

Highway Authority 4.2 No highway objection.

Environmental Health (DCP) 4.3 No comment.

Tree and landscape Officer (DCP) 4.4 Having regard to the various amendments proposed, and the TPO to be served to ensure control over tree management, I can withdraw my objection to the scheme.

Likely to a be thinning of boundary as has already occurred due to exposed setting – No more objection provided TPO and landscape scheme TPO as well. – colours as submitted and sedum roof implemented.

Mineral Team (DCC)

4.5 As the proposal is contained within the existing property curtilage, the Mineral Planning Authority has no comment on this application.

5. Other consultations 5.1 None

6. Other representations 6.1 Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com.

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History

Page 57 App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer 1/D/10/00083 FUL Single storey extension. Erect R 12 July RP 0 garage/outbuilding 2010 1/D/10/00126 FUL Single storey extension & A 18 RP 2 garage/outbuilding October 2010 1/D/13/00132 FUL Demolition of existing dwelling R 26 RN 4 and erection of replacement Novemb dwelling er 2013 1/D/13/00132 REF Demolition of existing dwelling DIS 24 June RN 4 (Appeal) and erection of replacement 2014 dwelling WD/D/17/000 FUL Demolition of existing dwelling UNK 114 with replacement new dwelling.

9. The Development Plan West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).

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

INT1. PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

ENV1. LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST

ENV2. WILDLIFE AND HABITATS

ENV10. THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING

ENV11. THE PATTERN OF STREETS AND SPACES

ENV12. THE DESIGN AND POSITIONING OF BUILDINGS

ENV16. AMENITY

SUS2. DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT

SUS4. THE REPLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

HOUS6. OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES

COM7. CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK

COM9. PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT

10. Supplementary planning documents

Page 58 10.1 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009).

11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 WDDC Landscape Character Area - Bexington Coast - Feb 2009

11.2 Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014-19

12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) National Planning Policy Framework

The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied. In terms of decision-taking this means:

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

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

· any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole;

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

The NPPF also states that:

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

Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work pro actively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. (Para. 187) Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be covered in the “Planning issues” section of the report.

S Subject e

Page 59 6.Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes

7.Requiring good design

11.Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

Planning Practice Guidance

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

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

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

13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development

The application site has been the subject of 3 planning applications and an appeal in recent years. The site has the benefit of an implementable extant consent for a small single storey extension to the rear and a garage from 2010. The garage was built and as such the extension can be built at any point in the future which would allow a total floor space of 125 sqm. In 2013 an application was refused (1 /D/13/001324) for a replacement dwelling on site which was taken to appeal and the decision was upheld (Ref:APP/F1230/A/14/2214314). This was for a substantial dwelling with a floor area of 285 sqm which an increased roof height. The proposed dwelling by reason of the substantial increase is the size of the floor area, height and massing would have had a detrimental impact on the landscape qualities and character of the local area. Furthermore the development would have resulted in the loss of trees to the front and side of the site would expose the proposed replacement dwelling causing further harm to the rural and coastal character of the locality. Noteworthy points of the inspectors decision were as follows:

13.2 ‘…The design attempts to offset this height by setting down the proposed dwelling into the slope of the site. This goes some way towards minimising the apparent height and bulk of the development.

13.3 However, this approach is only partially successful. My observations indicate that the lower storey would be largely screened by the existing vegetation, even allowing for the removal of some of the trees. However, the long-term

Page 60 retention of these trees and shrubs cannot be relied upon. They may be removed where not protected by a Tree Preservation Order, or may become damaged or diseased. There is a real possibility over the long term that the loss of trees and other vegetation would open up wider views of the proposed development from the south. The extensive use of glazing to the south elevation, which would tend to catch and reflect the light, would further increase the prominence of the development.

13.4 Furthermore, I am mindful that the width and depth of the proposed dwelling would be increased in comparison to the existing dwelling, bringing the proposed dwelling closer to the southern boundary. A sizeable detached outbuilding, including a lower level of accommodation, would also be retained on the site. Taken as a whole, my impression is of a substantial increase in the size, scale and bulk of development across the site. The resulting development would not reflect the secluded rural character of the site and its sensitive landscape setting.

13.5 I see no reason to oppose the principle of a replacement dwelling in this case and I agree with the appellant that the proposal would not adversely affect the range and types of dwellings in the area. However, the particular proposal before me does not achieve an acceptable design and would harm the local area. I acknowledge that the existing dwelling is of poor quality and is in need of renovation or replacement. No doubt, this would secure other improvements, for example, in relation to energy efficiency. However, the harm that I have identified above significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of replacing the existing dwelling. Accordingly, and for the reasons given, the appeal does not succeed.’

13.6 These extracts suggest therefore that a replacement dwelling could be achieved on site provided · the trees were retained in perpetuity by a TPO, · the design was not as large and bulky, · the height does not increase and · the development does not overly proceed towards the southern boundary.

This criteria has therefore formed the basis and balance of this current assessment as a material consideration along with Policy considerations.

13.7 The dwelling is located outside of any defined development boundaries set amongst a hamlet of properties on the Heritage Coast. As such the following policy sections are relevant.

13.8 Policy SUS2 states ...'Outside defined development boundaries, development will be strictly controlled, having particular regard to the need for the protection of the countryside and environmental constraints, and be restricted to:...

• alterations and extensions to existing buildings in line with their current lawful use, including their subdivision or replacement;...'

13.9 Policy HOUS6 states

'... The replacement of an existing lawful dwelling-house located outside the defined development boundaries will be permitted on a one-for-one basis,

Page 61 provided that: the new building can be accommodated within the existing curtilage; • the new building is not significantly larger than the original and does not detract from the character and appearance of the locality or its landscape setting...'

13.10 In accordance with these policies the replacement of dwellings can be supported. However the proposal is for a substantial extension and in accordance with this policy pretext this is due to the retention of smaller more affordable dwellings. This is particularly within the AONB and outside the main settlements. It is expected that replacement dwellings will be of a similar size to the original dwelling (within 10% by volume) unless it can be shown that a larger development results in a benefit to the character or appearance of the area. In this site the character locally is for larger properties that would not be considered to be within the category of starter smaller homes due to the views and coastal location inflating the price. Therefore the proposal size can be accepted in this location, subject to compliance with other policies.

13.11 Community Infrastructure Levy

The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per sq. m. CIL rate. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sq. m. in West Dorset. In this case the CIL charge is approximately £13,720 although self build is being claimed and therefore they may be exempt. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development.

13.12 Design, Landscape and AONB

The existing small dwelling is of no particular architectural or historic merit. However, it is low lying and unobtrusive in its setting and in longer distance views from the coast. The proposed replacement dwelling would provide two storeys of accommodation and corresponds to a substantial increase in size when compared to the existing dwelling. The design attempts to offset this by setting down the proposed dwelling into the slope of the site. This goes some way towards minimising the apparent height and bulk of the development through the set down roof in comparison to the existing dwelling (and previously refused scheme at appeal). The appeal on the previous application upheld a refusal due to the impact of the design on the landscape character but it also stated that a replacement dwelling could potentially be achieved on this site in principle.

13.13 The size has been reduced so that the footprint is comparable to the existing and the increase in floor area of 228 sqm is achieved over 2 floors set into the slope. The proposed design is a modern flat roofed design which has been amended to be painted grey from white (The proposed development is now proposed to be finished in thru colour render colour - Farrow & Ball - Mouse's Back (a light grey) and the fascia is now proposed to be finished in colour: charcoal grey). This is in comparison to the more traditional design proposed as part of the application refused at appeal which had a pitched roof and wood clad. The proposed roof design is now proposed to be lower

Page 62 than the existing dwelling whilst the previous scheme proposed a dwelling that was taller than the existing dwelling. The depth has been significantly reduced also and the width remains the same however the bulk from the width has been reduced and stepped back which is illustrated on the location plan dated 28th April. All these amendments combine to make a sufficiently reduced scheme that is no longer considered to be detrimental in terms of mass, scale and bulk. This is particularly when considered in conjunction with the newly agreed Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

13.14 The proposal seeks to use louvered doors to the windows to soften and reduce glare from the glazing. The Parish Council raised particular concerns regarding the extensive use of glass and the balcony areas in the proposed development would catch the eye and emphasize the prominence of the development. This is in comparison to the refused dwelling which had a similar level of glazing. It is considered that this proposal would have an impact but that this would be acceptable due to the number of fixed louvres, as shown on the floor plan submitted 28th April, Also the sliding louvres which would afford reduced glare when closed. This is considered in conjunction with the TPO.

13.15 The proposal has been assessed by the landscape officer and since the application has been registered a TPO has been put on the site. It is therefore considered that the proposal would not detract from local landscape character due to the control now imposed on retaining and maintaining the trees in perpetuity. It is considered that the proposal would not harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Beauty.

13.16 Amenity

The proposed development would have not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties of St Columba, St Aiden, Four Winds, St Brides, Largess or the Othona Community adjacent. This is due to their being no net increase in dwellings in this location so the overall impact remains the same. The change in design would not impact in terms of overlooking or overbearing due to the height of the dwelling within the slope being similar and due to the separation distance between the properties.

The house meets technical standards for floor space of new buildings, in accordance with ENV12 and national guidance.

13.17 Access and parking

The proposal would not compromise road safety and there is sufficient parking.

13.18 Protected species Having had regard to the submitted bat check it is considered that the proposal would have no adverse impact on biodiversity interests.

13.19 Protected trees

Having had regard to the submitted plans it is considered that the proposal

Page 63 would have no adverse impact on protected trees.

13.20 Minerals impact

The minerals team at DCC have raised no concerns therefore there are no concerns in this regard.

14. Summary 14.1 On balance the proposed development has been altered in such a way that the design is considered to be appropriate in its plot and would maintain the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty in this area. An enhancement has also been gained in the form of the TPO which would ensure that the trees are retained and maintained in perpetuity.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve subject to the following conditions:

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

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

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

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

3 The render in the development hereby approved shall be finished in thru colour render Farrow & Ball, Mouse's Back (a light grey) and the fascia is to be finished in colour charcoal grey and all other materials are to be as detailed on plan 8533-02RevA, unless otherwise agreed in writing from the Local Planning Authority and the development shall thereafter accord with the approved materials and colour.

Reason: To safeguard the character of the locality.

4 The proposed louvres on the windows shown as fixed shut and moveable shall be subsequently permanently maintained in that condition, unless otherwise agreed in writing.

Reason: To ensure the visual amenities of the AONB are maintained.

5 The sedum roof in the development hereby approved shall be finished as submitted and shall be subsequently permanently maintained as a sedum roof, unless otherwise agreed in writing

Reason: To safeguard the character of the locality.Reason: To safeguard the character of the locality.

Informatives:

1. National Planning Policy Framework paragraphs 186 &187 Statement - In accordance

Page 64 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 was provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer and permission was granted.

2. 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.

Page 65 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 9

Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/17/000826

Application Number: WD/D/17/000826 Outline

Registration Date: 19 April, 2017

Application Site: LAND SOUTH EAST OF WINDSOR LODGE, CHEDINGTON LANE, MOSTERTON

Proposal: Outline application for the erection of 1 no. dwelling

Applicant: Mr Higgins

Ward Members: Cllr A Alford, Cllr P Barrowcliff

Case Officer: Hamish Laird

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve

2. Description of development 2.1 The site comprises a paddock area set behind a mature hedge on the north side of and fronting onto Chedington Lane, Mosterton. Its side and rear boundaries to the north-east and south-east are marked by post and wire fencing where they bound adjoining agricultural land. The north-west boundary with the adjoining dwelling at Windsor Lodge is marked by wooden vertical board fencing standing on a low brick wall set between brick piers at intervals – 2 single storey, detached, dwelling of stone construction under a concrete tiled roof, with detached double garage standing in spacious plot.

2.2 This outline planning application proposes the erection of a single storey dwelling on a site area measuring 0.09ha. The submitted 1:500 scale Block Plan indicates a potential vehicular access onto Chedington Lane. The application seeks permission in principle, only. All other matters such as Access, Appearance, Landscaping; Layout; and, Scale are ‘reserved’ for consideration at a later stage – the Reserved Matters. The dwelling proposed is an 'open market' dwelling. It is not proposed to be the subject of any agricultural tie or other occupancy condition.

3. Main planning issues · Principle of development · Amenity · Landscape · Highway safety · Biodiversity and Protected Species

4. Statutory Consultations

Page 67 Parish/Town Council 4.1 Mosterton Parish Council object to this planning application for a permanent dwelling as it is outside of the Defined Development Boundary, and not in accordance with residents wishes as documented in Mosterton Parish Village Plan, 2015 -2020. There are also concerns about access to the site, and surface water run off affecting other nearby dwellings.

Highway Authority 4.2 No comment.

5. Other consultations 5.1 WDDC - Environmental Health – No comment.

5.2 WDDC Technical Services: Comments as follows: With regards to the above application I have no objections or further comments.

5.3 Natural England: No objection subject to the appropriate mitigation being secured.

As submitted the application has the potential to negatively impact on protected species.

In order to mitigate these adverse effects and make the development acceptable, the following mitigation measures are required:

- An extended phase 1 habitat survey should be undertaken and submitted to the local planning authority. - Further survey work, mitigation, compensation and enhancement outlined within the survey report should be secured through a planning condition.

Further advice is also provided in respect of environmental enhancement as outlined in the NPPF at paragraphs 108 and 109.

5.4 Dorset CC - Natural Environment Team (NET) I have checked the application on-line and from Dorset Explorer there does appear to be habitats which will require checking for protected species.

Our (NET) website states

“This applies to all development sites of 0.1ha or greater in size or where there are known protected species or important habitats/habitat features”

We would therefore recommend a survey and an approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) is conditioned. The BMP will be reviewed in accordance with the Dorset Biodiversity Appraisal and a Certificate of Approval issued. The one document will capture all the appropriate survey, mitigation and enhancements referred to by NE in their response.

6. Other representations

Page 68 6.1 Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com.

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History - None

App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer WD/D/16/0026 FUL Install mobile home and Approved 7/2/17 SM 36 associated landscaping. Land North of Chedington Lane, Mosterton. (Adjoining site)

9. The Development Plan

West Dorset, Weyouth and Portland Local Plan - Adopted - October, 2015 9.1 As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant. · INT1 – Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development · ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape & Sites of other Geological Interest · ENV2 – Wildflife and Habitats · ENV10 – The Landscape and Townscape Setting · ENV 12 – The Design and Positioning of Buildings · ENV 16 – Amenity · SUS2 – Distribution of Development · COM7 – Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 WDDC Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009) 10.2 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment (2009) 10.3 Dorset AONB Management Plan - 2014 to 2019

11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 None.

12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) Part 7 – Requiring Good Design

Part 11 – Conserving and enhancing the natural environment

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

Page 69 and inclusive design for all development, including individual buildings, public and private spaces and wider area development schemes.

Decision taking: Para 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.

Para 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.

12.2 Conservation Area Appraisals - N/A

13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development – The site is outside of the defined development boundary for the village of Mosterton, but the applicant’s land lies adjacent to the boundary and the dwelling would (subject to details) be sited approximately between 12m and 40m from the development boundary. The site is between Windsor Lodge to the north-west and Ridge Farm to the east, with dwellings at 1 and 2 Chedington Lane lying on the opposite side of the road to the west. A recent planning approval for a mobile home on the adjoining site to the south-east was granted for an unfettered dwelling with no occupancy condition. Therefore, if permitted the proposed dwelling would not be the last on this road when leaving the village.

13.2 Outside of the DDB’s the adopted Local Plan does not permit new open market dwellings without occupancy restrictions unless through the conversion of existing buildings and even then they would be subject to limitations. The proposal being for a dwelling without any occupancy restriction is, therefore, contrary to the policies of the adopted local plan. It is noted that the site is within walking distance of a number of local facilities and services and transport links.

13.3 The comments received from Mosterton Parish Council are noted. The Mosterton Parish Village Plan 2015 – 2020 is a material consideration. At page 9 of the Plan under the heading ‘Planning and Development’, the ‘Actions proposed’ concluded:

“Residents seem to feel very strongly that any development should take place within the Local Plan defined development boundary, and not encroach on the surrounding AONB countryside.”

13.4 Monitoring for the year 2014/15 showed a housing land supply of 5.3 years, which was an increase from 5.1 years in 2013/14. On the basis of the 2013/14 figure of 5.1 years of supply, the Local Plan Inspector indicated that this “is close to the minimum required to provide choice and competition” and provides “very little margin should circumstances change”. In the light of this he stated (in paragraph 106) that the Councils should “take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position, as

Page 70 well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period.” He also stated (in paragraph 103) that it is ... “imperative that the Councils do not ignore new opportunities which come forward in sustainable locations and are consistent with other policy provisions”. Monitoring for 2015/16 shows that the housing land supply has now slipped below 5 years to 4.6 years following a recent appeal. This means that para 49 of the NPPF is ‘engaged’ and relevant policies for the supply of housing, including Policy SUS 2, may no longer be considered to be up-to-date. Where a ‘relevant policy’ such as SUS 2 is considered to be ‘out-of-date’, Para 14 of the NPPF is also engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted unless:

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

Recent legal judgements confirm that the engagement of paras 49 and 14 of the NPPF do not mean that relevant policies in the local plan should be ignored or dis-applied. It remains a matter for the ‘decision-maker’ (i.e. the council) to determine the weight that should be attached to such policies. However, the lack of a 5 year supply, even if the supply is only marginally below 5 years, means that less weight has to be given to policies such as Policy SUS 2 in decision-making. The local plan inspector’s comments, which raised concerns about the marginal nature of the council’s housing land supply, remain just as relevant to decision-making, now the supply has slipped below 5 years. The site is located close to the defined development boundary (DDB) of Mosterton in the adopted local plan and is clearly seen in the wider context of the village. Based on the requirement to assist in the lack of five year housing supply, and subject to compliance with other policies in the local plan, the proposal in principle is considered acceptable.

13.5 The presumption in favour of sustainable development should only be applied where a development is considered to be sustainable. In determining what is sustainable, the NPPF refers to the policies in paragraph 19 – 219, taken as a whole, this should be tested by considering the following three dimensions of sustainable development – economic, social and environmental.

13.6 From a social perspective the application would provide a further dwelling which would be "tagged onto" the end of the village and it is arguable that this would be in a sustainable location. In terms of the economic considerations the dwelling would allow the applicant to live on site close to the village. There would be nothing in planning terms preventing the applicant selling the dwelling or site on in the future. However, the impact of this is fairly negligible in terms of contributing to the 5 year housing land supply. The proposal would provide another dwelling to aid the ongoing provision of facilities in the village such as the shop, public house and school. Although, again the impact is fairly negligible.

13.7 With regard to environmental considerations the site is in the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The application for the proposed dwelling is in outline only. Design details would be agreed at the Reserved Matters stage if Outline Planning Permission was granted, and there is a mix of types and styles of dwellings in the vicinity, including some bungalows. Therefore, a

Page 71 single storey dwelling would be in keeping with these adjoining dwellings and the recently permitted mobile home. The site itself adjoins existing residential properties and is fairly well screened by the existing roadside boundary hedgerow. It is not a visually prominent site in terms of the wider landscape given the context in which it is viewed.

13.8 The site is considered to be sustainable given the above considerations and its situation directly adjoining the DDB for the village and as such, subject to all other material considerations, the development is considered sustainable.

13.9 Road safety/parking – There is no existing access to the site and such provision would form one of the Reserved Matters. An indicative access point is shown on the submitted plan close to the site boundary with Windsor Lodge. Parking would be provided on site. It is considered that the provision of a vehicular access is acceptable in principle given adjoining access points onto Chedington Lane, serving existing dwellings. Dorset CC – Highways has replied with ‘no comment’ on the application. It is considered that access to the site form the highway is achievable without the requirement for any third party land.

13.10 Amenity of neighbouring properties – The site adjoins and lies opposite existing residential properties. It is considered as such that the development would not adversely impact on the residential amenities of occupants of neighbouring properties. 13.11 Community Infrastructure – The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per sq. m. CIL rate. The development proposal is CIL liable. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sq. m. In this case the CIL charge will be calculated at the Reserved Matters stage as no design details form part of this application. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development. 13.12 Protected species – The comments received from Natural England requesting a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, and a Biodiversity mitigation plan are noted.

13.13 In submitting the application, the applicants comment that the site area amounts to less than 0.1 hectare, and the Local List of requirements in Section B of the Councils ‘Planning Applications Requirements’ published on line as guidance for applicants advises:

“Biodiversity Survey and Report A Biodiversity Appraisal accompanied by a standardised Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) is required for all greenfield or brownfield development sites over 0.1ha in size, where not currently used as existing residential or business premises. A BMP covers habitat as well as protected species matters.”

13.14 Given the size if the site being below the 0.1 ha threshold, and the fact that the adjoining site subject of the WD/D/16/002636 permission to install a mobile home and associated landscaping, upon which Natural England was not consulted, and no requirement for a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and BMP was made, to request such a Survey and Report here at the Outline stage

Page 72 when it is not a Local List requirement, appears onerous and unreasonable. If approval is granted, it should be conditioned that a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and certified approved BMP shall be submitted for consideration at the Reserved Matters stage, with any protected species encountered on site safeguarded via appropriate measures. Also, that no development takes place during the Bird Nesting Season of March – August. Furthermore, the standard Protected Species informative should be added to any permission granted. Officers consider that such measures would respect any biodiversity value contained on the land.

14. Summary 14.1 Whilst the site is located outside the DDB for Mosterton, it is located directly adjacent to it. Also, it sits between the DDB and an adjoining site to the east where PP Ref: WD/D/16/002636 for a mobile home and landscaping was granted in February, 2017. This site is also located outside the DDB.

14.2 The requirements of Natural England for a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and BMP were not applied to the above adjoining site. As the application site is less than 0.1ha the Council’s Local List of requirements for applications did not require any such survey or BMP to be submitted. Officers consider that it would be unreasonable and onerous to insist on such a requirement at this stage given the lack of such a requirement on the adjacent site. As the application is in outline only, with all Matters reserved for future consideration, this can be conditioned to be submitted at the Reserved Matters stage.

14.3 There are no neighbour amenity or highway safety issues and the design and appearance and impact on neighbours amenities of the single storey dwelling can be controlled at the Reserved Matters stage. It can be conditioned that the roadside hedgerow be retained except at the point of access to ensure adequate screening of the site from Chedington Lane.

14.4 The application is acceptable and should be approved.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve subject to condiitons i. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:

Location Plan & Block Plan - Drawing Number 17/030/01 Rev B

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

ii. Approval of the details of the layout, scale and appearance of the building(s), the means of access thereto 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.

iii. 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.

Page 73 REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. iv. 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). v. The existing hedgerow running along the length of the Chedington Lane roadside boundary of the site, shall, except at the point of access agreed in the Reserved Matters, be retained, and maintained as the sites roadside boundary at all times.

REASON: In the interests of the amenity and appearance of the location and to assist in assimilating the development into its surroundings in accordance with the provisions of Policies ENV1, ENV10 and ENV12 in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan - adopted October, 2015. vi. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order, 2015, (as amended) or any Order revoking or re-enacting that Order, no development permitted under Schedule 2, Part 1, Classes A - C shall be carried out at the dwelling hereby approved without the prior grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority.

REASON: The Council wishes to retain control over the size of this dwelling to ensure the size of the property remains commensurate with its edge of settlement location within the Dorset AONB in the interests of the character and appearance of this part of the open countryside in accordance with Policies ENV1, ENV10, ENV12, and ENV16 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted October, 2015). vii. As part of any submission for Reserved Matters; or, in the event of a full planning application for the development of the site being submitted, a Phase 1 Habitat Survey and certified approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (BMP) shall be submitted for consideration and written approval by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out fully in accordance with the approved details, with the appropriate mitigation thereafter being permanently maintained.

REASON: In order to safeguard and enhance the ecological value of the site, in accordance with policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan Adopted – (October, 2015); and, the advice contained in Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – 2012. viii. No development shall take place on site during the Bird Nesting Season of 1st March – 31st August.

REASON: To protect the nest sites of breeding birds in accordance with

Page 74 the provisions of Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan – Adopted – (October, 2015); and, the advice contained in Section 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) – 2012.

Page 75 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10

Planning Committee 17 August, 2017 WD/D/17/001220

Application Number: WD/D/17/001220 Full

Registration Date: 11 May, 2017

Application Site: HARDSTANDING AND ROCK ARMOUR SOUTH OF, SEA HILL LANE, SEATOWN

Proposal: Place approx. 160 tonnes of rock to extend the existing rock armour structure, rebuilding sections of blockwork wall and repairs to concrete hardstanding area

Applicant: West Dorset District Council

Ward Members: Cllr S Christopher

Case Officer: Darren Rogers

1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve

2. Description of development 2.1 It is proposed to place additional rock armour and associated repairs to the existing concrete apron at Seatown Foreshore/Beach. The beach and seafront at Seatown has been privately owned for many years [the Wraxall family] and this project is one of a number being progressed through a local regeneration partnership that includes the beach owner, the District Council, Chideock Parish Council, Dorset County Council and other private landowners.

2.2 The need for improvements to the seafront was identified in the Seatown Regeneration Feasibility Study report prepared and published in March 2016, by a small group of local consultants, on behalf of the Chideock Society/Parish Council. This following research and engagement work that was funded by the government’s Coastal Revival Fund. The report includes a range of projects and initiatives that are now being taken forward by the different partners, as funding becomes available.

2.3 The preparation of the study report involved a series of local workshops and consultation events with the local community and stakeholders and the District Council engineering team was an active participant in these events. The report included proposals for protecting the seafront and improving public access to the beach, but since the publication of the Report, a further assessment has been made of the options and in December 2016, the District Council engineers recommended a more modest and straightforward proposal, which does not involve the new turning head for the highway which was included in the original scheme. This revised scheme has been

Page 77 supported by local partners and community representatives and so now forms the basis of this planning application.

2.4 The Current Seafront and The New Proposals a. The seafront at Seatown does have the benefit of some rock armour protection, comprised of large blocks of Mendip Limestone, that were installed by West Dorset District Council some years ago, but it does not extend in front of the concrete apron.

b. A series of recent storms has caused additional damage to the concrete apron and this has focussed all parties on the importance of this area being repaired and protected for the future. Without such action there is a real danger that the concrete apron will be further undermined and damaged, which if extensive enough could cause the public highway and turning head to also be damaged or even to collapse.

c. Seatown is a small but important access point to the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and receives a large number of visitors throughout the year and especially during summer months. Golden Cap Holiday Park accommodates visitors in static and touring pitches, making Seatown one of the key gateways to this part of the coastline. It is also the main point where those wanting to walk up to the top of Golden Cap start. Golden Cap is the highest point on the south coast, commands fantastic views over the rest of the Jurassic Coast to the East and West and is featured on many advertisements for the World Heritage Site. It is therefore more attractive and busier due to this fact than might otherwise be the case. Visitor numbers are increased further by the presence of the Anchor Inn which is most popular and the public car park, both of which are owned by Palmers Brewery.

d. However access to the beach itself is not the easiest and the current proposals for the additional rock armour include maintenance works to the hardstanding and ramp area to provide much improved access to the beach. This will be complemented by other proposed initiatives within the regeneration report, including new information and interpretation, environmental and signing improvements and subject to confirmation by Dorset CC, new passing places along Seahill Lane to ease the serious congestion problems along this length of highway, which is mainly single file. It is important therefore that this proposal for additional rock armour is seen and considered within this wider regeneration context.

e. In the spirit of the partnership project that is underway, it has been agreed that the rock armour stone will be sourced, funded and transported by the beach owner, with timing to be agreed, whilst the District Council, with its coastal engineering responsibilities will undertake its installation and the repair of the existing seawall, so that they are satisfied that this work and the work is completed to their standards and reflect the earlier rock armour protection, that was installed previously

3. Main planning issues · Need for the development · The visual impact on AONB/Heritage/World Heritage coast · Impact on the character and appearance of the area and nearby listed

Page 78 buildings. · Impact on residential amenity

4. Statutory Consultations

Parish/Town Council 4.1 Chideock Parish Council fully supports this application.

The Parish Council is concerned that the wall supporting the DCC maintained public highway is in urgent need of repair and this does not appear to be covered by the application. NB - The wall is not owned or controlled by WDDC and is the responsibility of DCC as the wall supports the highway. However, some of the concrete repairs we are carrying out to the adjacent hardstanding area will improve the toe support to the wall.

Highway Authority 4.2 Dorset County Council has no objections, subject to the following condition:

Construction traffic management plan to be submitted Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include:

o construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) o a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries o timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods o contractors' arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage) o wheel cleaning facilities o vehicle cleaning facilities o a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site o a route plan for all contractors and suppliers to be advised on

The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Reason: to minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network and prevent the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway

5. Other consultations 5.1 World Heritage Coast Team - The Jurassic Coast Team have no objections to this application. Whilst the encroachment of rock armour onto the beach will have a minor negative impact on the features that underpin Outstanding Universal Value of the World Heritage Site and on its setting it is recognised that the scheme has significant benefits to the sea front amenity and sustainability that represent an acceptable offset.

It is noted that the scheme is in line with current SMP policies for the short term. In the medium and long term we do not expect to support the ongoing maintenance of hard coastal defences at Seatown and will instead advocate

Page 79 for adaptation to coastal change through managed realignment. We regard this latest investment in coastal defences to be an interim measure and urge West Dorset District Council and the community of Seatown to consider how it fits into the long term implications of increased sea level rise and erosion.

5.2 DCP Landscape Officer - The proposed rock armour will be an extension of existing coastal defences in the immediate area. The proposed works will also rebuild and repair existing works that are in poor condition. It is not anticipated that the proposed works will affect any of the key characteristics or have any detrimental impact upon the condition of the landscape character area. The Heritage Coast Team have been consulted regarding the visual impact of the scheme upon the Heritage Coast.

Recommendations - No objection and no landscape conditions required

5.3 Natural England - Having liaised with both my Jurassic Coast and Dorset AONB colleagues over this proposal, Natural England have no objection to its implementation.

It is Natural England’s general presumption that natural coastal processes are allowed to operate in as natural a manner as possible within designated sites, especially a site which is additionally designated internationally for its biodiversity, geology, geological exposures fossil record and active geomorphological processes as both a SAC and England’s only natural World Heritage Site.

However, it is clear that in this case the works are required to maintain, in the short term, important local infrastructure in a manner which conforms with the relevant policy for this unit in the Durlston Head to Rame Head SMP2 (Seatown, PUR 6a15) which identifies a short term policy to Hold the Line. SMP2 also makes it clear that while temporarily interrupting natural coastal processes, the medium to long term outlook is for a policy change to No Active Intervention and a return to a naturally functioning shoreline and subsequently any adverse impacts on the area’s designated features/processes can be seen as short term and entirely reversible. Within that context, it is worth reflecting on the SMP’s observation that (with my pluralisation to reflect the existing and new structure):

Due to the long term aim for this area it is not planned that the revetment[s] would be rebuilt should it [they] fail, which could be within the next 20 years. Therefore measures to address the future consequences of a No Active Intervention policy need to be developed in the immediate term. (SMP2, P146).

It would, therefore, appear imperative that while this short term defence is installed and does its job, we see a parallel effort to plan for the inevitable failure of the defences so that adaptation measures can quickly be brought into play to ensure Seatown is able to continue to function as an important access point to the Jurassic Coast.

Natural England are keen to be involved in any such discussions and planning as and when they are.

Page 80 6. Other representations 6.1 2 representations have been received in support of the proposals - one on behalf of the Chideock Society, the aims of which include the conservation and enhancement the village environment and the protection of flora and fauna. The Society, with over 100 village and nearby members, wholeheartedly supports this application. It is clear that doing nothing to protect this area at Seatown is not an option, since with every storm yet more of the infrastructure at the seafront is exposed and has become badly damaged. The extension of the rock armour will protect the roadway to the beach for the foreseeable future; it will also improve and make safer the access to Seatown beach for all who use it: those able bodied and disabled, the young and not so young, local people and visitors alike.

This plan will assist in protecting Seatown for the future and enable many more people to visit this extremely popular section of the Jurassic Coast safely.

Currently to access the beach from the road, many people jump down from the hard-standing on to the pebbles, but once the new rock armour is in place this will become difficult and potentially dangerous leaving the ramp as the only safe route, but unfortunately an extensive stretch of the east side of this ramp is falling into the River Winniford because it has been undermined by deflected waves on storm days and abrasion from pebble wash. This eastern side of the ramp would need to be repaired and underpinned to allow safe access to the beach.

Another safety issue is that on the plans at the mid-point of the western side of the concrete hardstanding immediately below the turning circle, there is only mention of improvement to the concrete surface. At this junction point between the concrete hard-standing and wall supporting the road there has been a significant amount of scour from storms that has revealed there is no foundation to the road and turning circle wall - this section of scour is generally hidden by pebbles washed up on to the hard-standing covering the scour at the base of the wall. The wall supporting the road needs underpinning to prevent the road from collapse.

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

7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property

8. Relevant Planning History - None relevant

9. The West Dorset/Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (adopted 2015) INT1 - Sustainable Development ENV1 – Landscape, Seascape and sites of geological importance ENV4 - Heritage Assets ENV7 - Coastal erosion and land instability ENV12 – Design ENV16 – Amenity ENV10 - The Landscape and Townscape Setting

Page 81 COM7. Creating A Safe And Efficient Transport Network

10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 WDDC Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines

Policy A, H and I

10.2 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009 Site is within the Chideock Hills LCA

10.3 Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014-19

11. Other Relevant Planning Documents 11.1 Charmouth & Chideock Conservation Area Appraisal

The particular qualities of the whole Conservation Area are: • An attractive wider setting, within the Dorset AONB and adjacent to the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site, with a landscape framework of high cliffs, an historic coastal settlement at Seatown and another inland at North Chideock,high inland hills, trees and hedges;

11.2 Seatown falls within the following Shoreline Management Plan Area. Durlston Head to Rame Head Shoreline Management Plan Area 6 a15

The Shoreline Management Plan (SMP2) for the area between Durlston Head to Rame Head was issued in June 2011 and provides a large-scale assessment of the risks associated with coastal evolution. It includes a policy framework to address these risks in a sustainable manner with respect to people and the developed, historic and natural environment.

For the Seatown Area, the SMP 2 states as follows: “This section of coast is characterised by dramatic, geologically important cliffs which are subject to large-scale complex land sliding. These events are difficult to predict with any certainty, making management of this shoreline difficult. Sediment interlinkages along this frontage are relatively weak due to the interruptions caused by headlands.

The nature of the erosion of these cliffs is integral to their designations and landscape value, however the area is also important for tourism, with resorts at Seatown, Charmouth, Lyme Regis, Seaton and Beer heavily dependent upon this. A key driver of policy is therefore to allow the continuation of natural coastline evolution whilst managing the risk of erosion and flooding to the key settlements.

The defence of Seatown will become increasingly difficult and expensive in the long term. Therefore the long term vision is for a more naturally functioning coast. This would, however, result in the potential loss of some assets. Therefore measures will need to be put into place to manage this transition from existing practice. In the long term the shoreline should reach a more sustainable position, such that a beach will be retained.

“Therefore the risk in these areas may be managed in the short to medium term through either maintenance of existing defences …. However, the long term defence of these areas will be determined by the extent and location of

Page 82 future cliff recession and so it may be necessary to consider measures to enable assets to be relocated away from the areas at risk. This would be based on continual monitoring”.

In summary therefore, the current policy is to ‘Hold the Line’ whilst in the medium to long term it would be ‘No Active Intervention’ and ‘Managed Realignment’, which could have significant implications on foreshore assets. However although there are guide timelines within the SMP, there is no fixed timescale to determine what Medium to Long Term may mean in practice and the whole coastline is monitored.

The proposals subject to this application accord with the policy for the ‘maintenance of existing defences’; with those defences being the concrete sea wall that needs to be repaired and supplemented with rock armour. The CRPG suggests that there will be coastal recession at this location in the future but the form of the proposed works can be considered appropriate at this time given their function to provide further protection to this damaged area of foreshore. There are no ground stability issues associated with these works.

However it is important to emphasise that this project is being undertaken largely due to the interests of tourism and the local economy and to allow the current situation to deteriorate further would be extremely damaging to this important economic interest, as well as the reputation of the World Heritage Site which is of global importance, with the national and local government having a duty to ensure its protection.

12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 The Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site

In the local plan, the following definitions are included for the World Heritage site: “….An informal term used to include both the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site, and the immediate towns and countryside which provide the education, accommodation and transport facilities that enable people to visit and understand the World Heritage Site”.

“World Heritage Site - An area considered to be of outstanding universal value that meets one or more of the four criteria set out by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO). In Dorset, the World Heritage Site refers to the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site, popularly known as the ‘Jurassic Coast', which was designated because it is considered to be an outstanding example representing major stages of the Earth's history, including the record of life, significant ongoing geological processes in the development of landforms, and significant geomorphic or physiographic features”.

As noted above, Seatown is a key location for the public to gain access to the World Heritage Site and therefore the maintenance of high quality access and facilities is considered essential. The proposals for further and enhanced information and interpretation that are part of the wider regeneration project will assist in the management and promotion of the site, which is a key priority of the designation.

Clearly being a World Heritage Site, the coastline has important designation

Page 83 and the overall coastline is also a Site of Special Scientific Interest and is part of the Special Area of Conservation designated under the EU Habitats Directive, which extends along much of the Dorset Coast.

13. Planning issues 13.1 Need for the development

Like the NPPF, the Local Plan is more focused on the consideration of new development that might be affected by coastal processes and climate change. It does however refer to and reflect the Shoreline Management Policy. It also states in Section 2.4.9 that…” Managing coastal erosion is about finding the right balance between the needs of local communities, the economy and the environment, to secure a sustainable and affordable approach to the threat while protecting natural interests”.

This is precisely the approach being adopted at Seatown, where the current proposals are modest in scale, the costs are being partly borne by the private landowner and the project does …..”strike the right balance between the needs of local communities, the economy and the environment”…

If the works are not undertaken, then the area will visually decline further to the detriment of both the local environment and community. The impression created of the area for visitors, will also deteriorate, making it a less attractive location, which in turn could adversely affect the businesses at the Golden Cap Holiday Park and Anchor Inn. As such, with the benefits for the community, the environment and the economy, it is submitted that the project is very much, ‘sustainable’.

The need for the works are therefore clearly required.

13.2 The visual impact on AONB/Heritage/World Heritage coast – As Members will see from those who have been consulted as regards this issue the works are not considered to adversely affect the AONB/Heritage Coast or World Heritage Coast and are considered necessary as part of the coastal defences given the storm damage earlier this year. The existing sea wall itself will not encroach further onto the beach, it will simply be repaired in its existing position. Whilst the rock armour will be physically placed upon the beach, this will be the same as the existing, adjacent rock armour and will only extend a relatively short length, to protect the front and side of the concrete apron.

13.3 Likewise the World Heritage Site Team has been kept appraised of the project, sent the plans and provided with a general updated of progress, since their earlier involvement when the regeneration plan was prepared in 2016.

13.4 Impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and nearby listed buildings. In this regard your Conservation Officer has been consulted who raises no objections. The site affected as part of these proposals falls within the southern end of Seatown Conservation Area and is situated alongside the last key building on Sea Hill Lane, The Anchor Inn. Set back and elevated from the road, it enjoys expansive views of the World Heritage Coastline and is also a prominent building from many vantage points. This is a detached, 2-storey public house, sited next to a grade II listed, detached dwelling (Anchor Cottage). The C19 Anchor Inn has been identified as an important local building for both its architectural and group

Page 84 value. The beach itself, situated in a bay between rigged cliffs that stand high over the coast is a highly important feature, contributing to the Jurassic Coastline which is a nationally designated World Heritage Site.

13.5 With regards the concrete works (blockwork and in-situ), what is proposed is merely reinstating what was previously there. The hardstanding concrete surface is not being extended but just patched where it has become worn and the blockwork wall rebuilt where it has been damaged. The rebuilt block wall will be mostly hidden by the new rock armour which was not the case previously. As such there are no objections from your Conservation Officer who support the proposals. As such Section 66 (setting impact of listed buildings) and 72 (the preserve/enhance test for development proposals within Conservation Areas) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) 1990 Act are duly met.

13.6 Impact on residential amenity – There will inevitably be some short term construction activity with some impacts on the nearest dwellings at this end of Seatown but this is not considered so significantly harmful that would justify a refusal of planning permission for the works proposed.

13.7 Summary & Conclusions The applicants submitted statement concludes :

This project to place some additional rock armour on the beach at Seatown and repair the seawall is an integral part of the wider Seatown Regeneration Project, which has the support of a wide range of public and private sector organisations.

The work is being taken forward as a joint initiative between the landowner and West Dorset DC, with the full support of the local Chideock Parish Council and Society who commissioned the original study report.

It is also planned that this initiative will help lever in other public and private sector funding, to ensure that a number of the other projects in the study report are implemented.

Initial consultation has been undertaken with Natural England, the statutory nature conservation body which has a direct interest in this location. No objections in principle have been raised. Likewise with the World Heritage Site team.

The proposals has demonstrated that there is no conflict between the proposed scheme and National and Local Planning or other relevant policies; indeed in some respect, it is actively supported.

As a result of the above and in view of the importance of the project to the local community; the local environment; and the local economy, it is submitted that there is no impediment to planning consent being granted.

14. Summary 14.1 The proposals are considered satisfactory given the issues as set out above

15. Recommendation 15.1 Approval is recommended subject to

Page 85 i. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). ii. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans:

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. iii. Construction traffic management plan to be submitted Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised a Construction Traffic Management Plan (CTMP) must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The CTMP must include:

o construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement) o a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries o timings of deliveries so as to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods o contractors' arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage) o wheel cleaning facilities o vehicle cleaning facilities o a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site o a route plan for all contractors and suppliers to be advised on

The development must be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

Reason: to minimise the likely impact of construction traffic on the surrounding highway network and prevent the possible deposit of loose material on the adjoining highway

Page 86