Public Document Pack
PLANNING COMMITTEE
Members of Planning Committee are invited to attend this meeting at South Walks House, South Walks, Dorchester, Dorset, DT1 1EE to consider the items listed on the following page.
Matt Prosser Chief Executive
Date: Thursday, 15 February 2018 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, B Haynes, 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 last meeting held on 18 January 2018, 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 WD/D/17/1356 - THE ORCHARD, CIDER APPLE ORCHARD, 5 - 36 CHANTMARLE LANE, CHANTMARLE
6 WD/D/17/0152 - LAND ADJACENT WINDSOR CLOSE, 37 - 68 MOSTERTON 7 WD/D/17/0035 - LAND TO EAST OF WYND CLOSE, WEST 69 - 92 STAFFORD
8 WD/D/17/1668 - INNSACRE FARMHOUSE, SHIPTON ROAD, 93 - 102 SHIPTON GORGE
9 WD/D/17/1943 - OLD SHIRE HALL, HIGH WEST STREET, 103 - 110 DORCHESTER
10 WD/D/16/0691 - VALUE HOUSE STORES, MANDEVILLE ROAD, 111 - 138 WYKE REGIS
11 URGENT ITEMS
To consider any items that the Chairman decides are urgent.
12 DATE OF SITE VISIT
Monday 19 March 2018.
13 INFORMAL MEMBER'S BRIEFINGS
To receive informal briefings from officers on major forthcoming applications (if any).
14 QUESTIONS
To receive questions submitted by members in writing to the Chief Executive and in respect of which the appropriate notice has been given.
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 paragraph of schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended). This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/17/001356
Application Number: WD/D/17/001356 Full
Registration Date: 12 July, 2017
Application Site: THE ORCHARD, CIDER APPLE ORCHARD, CHANTMARLE LANE JUNCTION CHANTMARLE TO, CHALMINGTON, DORCHESTER, DT2 0HB
Proposal: Use of land for siting of 5 shepherd's huts with composting toilets, extension to barn to form taproom, cafe and farm shop and installation of temporary mobile home.
Applicant: Mr Green
Ward Members: Cllr N M Penfold
Case Officer: Robert McDonald
The application is before Members following deferral at the previous meeting on 18 January 2018. The application was deferred to allow for further negotiations with the applicant over the hours of operation of the tap room/cafe/farm shop. Updates and amendments to the previous report are in bold below.
Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve subject to conditions.
2. Description of development 2.1 Site and surroundings
The application site lies to the south of the Chalmington hamlet and about 0.5km north of the Cattistock settlement, which does not have a DDB but is a 200+ population settlement. The proposals concern a strip of land skirting around the northern boundary of the holding which is currently farmed as a cider orchard. The wider holding is some 7.86ha in size and comprises a 40 year old apple orchard, planted with some 2600 cider apple trees.
2.2 In terms of built form on site, the only existing building is a steel portal framed barn, finished in green, which services the land and cider production. There are areas of hardstanding adjacent to the barn and a track providing access to the unclassified road which connects the hamlet to the C class road passing through Cattistock and beyond. The existing entrance to the site is gated and set in a dip in the road, with levels rising up to the north and south.
Page 5 2.3 The orchard is enclosed by substantial tree cover along some of the boundaries, with substantial hedgerows lining the SE and SW boundaries. A row of trees lining the road to the south east of the holding are protected by TPOs and, within the holding itself, the grouping of trees in the SW corner (known as Chalmington Firs) is also protected by a TPO. From this corner there is a public footpath that provides direct access across agricultural land to the village centre of Cattistock.
2.4 Like much of the district, the site is within the Dorset AONB. The wider setting has undulating topography. The Castle Hillfort, a scheduled ancient monument, lies about 0.5km to the south of the application site. The land around this is open access land which connects to public footpath which skirts around the western boundary of another schedule ancient monument called Middle Hill further east. The former open access land provides views over towards the holding and site.
2.5 Description of development
The proposed development has been amended during the course of the application to omit some elements originally proposed, following discussions with the LPA. The proposal no longer includes a separate building for the taproom/café/farm shop use and an intended woodchip boiler house building has been omitted.
2.6 The application seeks planning permission to use the land for siting of 5 shepherd’s huts with composting toilets, an extension to the existing barn to form taproom, café and farm shop and the installation of a temporary mobile home for a rural worker.
2.7 The 5 shepherd’s huts would be spread out around the northern boundary of the holding at varying distances apart. The applicant's statement contends that the huts would be sited in discrete locations, utilising existing clearings. Each hut could accommodate up to two persons and would have a wood burner, compostable toilet, integral shower and be built to a high enough standard whereby it could be occupied throughout the year. The huts would be typical in design and vernacular for such structures, constructed from timber under a metal sheet roof.
2.8 The taproom, café and farm shop would be formed as a lean-to extension to the existing barn on site. The extension would project some 6.5 metres beyond the SE side of the existing building. The additional floor area to the building would measure some 90 square metres. It would also contain two toilets. There would be a small enclosed decking area on the SE side. The extension would be constructed from timber cladding with timber framed fenestration.
2.9 The applicant's statement indicates that this facility would be open on a “flexible” basis for the public but mainly used for customers and glampers wanting to consume the cider on site and to help facilitate cider tours on site. The applicants initially proposed to have the taproom/café/farm shop open to the public from 11am to 7pm Mon – Weds; 11am to 11pm Thurs – Sat; and 11am to 4pm on Sundays.
Page 6 The opening hours for the tap room/cafe/farm shop have raised fundamental concerns from objectors, the Parish Council and Members during the January committee meeting. Some expressed concern the use could effectively become a public house in its use and function. It was suggested that more conventional retail opening hours be considered to protect neighbouring amenity and the character of the area.
Upon further consideration the applicants have now proposed opening hours of 9am to 7pm.
2.10 The temporary mobile home for a rural worker would be sited to the east of the barn. This would have the visual appearance of a log cabin and, in terms of size, would fall within the parameters of a ‘caravan’ by definition. It would be orientated so that the gable flanks would face the orchard.
2.11 A septic tank would be installed between the extended barn and the mobile home to service these buildings. Parking for the café and mobile home would utilise the existing hard standing on site. Parking for the shepherd’s huts is proposed to be a single space sited adjacent to each hut.
2.12 The location plan indicates that an area of land along the western boundary, just to the north of a TPO area known as Chalmington Firs, would accommodate the livestock that would be brought onto the land. Remaining fundamentally agricultural in use, this would not be a material change of use and not require planning permission. However any activity should not cause any harm or damage to the protected trees.
2.13 The matter of the red line application area and land covered by the application in relation to the farm as a whole was queried by Members at the January committee meeting. Legal advice during the meeting indicated that the Location Plan as submitted was valid and the acceptability of the plan has subsequently been confirmed by the Council's legal team.
3. Main planning issues · Principle of the development; · Impact on the character of the area; · Impact on neighbouring amenity; · Flood risk; · Impact on biodiversity; · Highway safety and parking provision;
4. Statutory Consultations
Parish/Town Council 4.1 Frome Valley Parish Council has considered this application in detail and objects to the application for the following reasons:
1. Residential unit This is likely to be the first step on a planning application process to the building of a significant residential property on the site; if planning permission were to be granted for the mobile home there is a strong chance that a future application will be made for a permanent residence.
Page 7 The Parish Council would want there to be an Agricultural Occupancy Condition applied.
2. Diversification The Parish Council is generally supportive of local businesses attempting to diversify. However, in this instance the Council is concerned that many of the supporters of the application are not local and will not be directly affected, though may benefit financially or via their own enterprises. This application seems to be both unsuitable and over-commercial for the site in question.
3. Flood Risk The Parish Council has attended a local meeting about the application and found that concerns regarding the flood risk were not addressed. The application clearly states that the site is not at risk of flooding which the Parish Council feels is not correct due to clear indications on The Environment Agency flood map for The Orchard, Chalmington which shows this address is in/near a flood risk area and that there is a high flood risk from surface water. There is also the possibility of an indirect effect on the proposed septic tank and soak-away for sewage disposal, with a good chance that the septic tank/soak-away could work in reverse when there is flooding causing the escape of raw sewage onto the site and downstream via the drainage ditch which eventually finishes up in the Frome. The claim that the development is not within 20 yards/metres of a watercourse is very dubious as the drainage ditch at the back of the proposed development could reasonably be described as a watercourse particularly in winter.
4. Waste storage and removal Section 7 of the application is advised as ‘no’, the Parish Council has concerns over how waste from the mobile home, farm shop and commercial kitchen is being dealt with. Some clarification over how trade effluent will be dealt with is required.
5. Trees and Hedges The Parish Council agrees with the concerns raised by the Landscape Officer.
6. Hours of opening There were no proposed opening hours included in the application. There is some concern that the development, with its licensed tap-room, cafe and farm shop, far from helping to promote and retain ‘local services and community facilities in villages such as local shops’, would have a negative impact on local amenities in the nearby village of Cattistock.
7. Licences and change of use The Parish Council has not been able to ascertain from the application that the correct licences have been applied for, or any mention of a ‘change of use’. Presumably there will be some requirement attached for the proposal to sell alcohol both in conjunction with the shop and glamping aspects of the application – for consumption both on site and off site.
Page 8 8. Utilities The application does not provide any details on how electricity will either be generated or supplied to site. The Parish Council understands there is currently no mains electricity at the site.
9. Industrial or Commercial Processes and Machinery The Parish Council would like to see more information on the machinery which is presumably going to be required as part of the proposed production of cider vinegar, cider brandy and ice cider. Environmental considerations will not doubt be attached to machinery of this type. No detail has been supplied.
10. Pollution – light and noise Residents local to the site have raised the issues of light and noise pollution emanating from the site which the Parish Council would also like to highlight.
11. Agricultural waste and impact The application refers to 10 sows, 1 boar and approx. 50 piglets being kept on site at any one time (Mr Green advised only 5 sows pregnant at any time with two litters each per year); 100 geese and 50-100 ducks. The Parish Council would like to see details of plans to deal with faecal waste, noise, and if there is food and water about, then this will attract vermin.
12. Biodiversity and AONB The site is within an AONB and the kind of development proposed is not likely to enhance what the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Plan describes as the essential qualities that such a designation carries with it, namely ‘a sense of tranquillity and remoteness’. Neither should the potential impact of numbers of visitors and vehicles on the immediate area and the problems inherent in the narrow road system that serves the site, be underestimated. The Council is aware of active badger setts and a local bat population, which would be affected.
13. Highways and access Parish Councillors have raised concerns about the entrance to the site which is almost blind for anyone pulling out onto the road. This is not obvious when driving down the road but the turn out is very dangerous as it is.
Highway Authority 4.2 Initial comments received 28 July 2017:
The County Highway Authority would want there to be an enhancement to the visibility to the north of the existing access – I would be happy to discuss this with the applicant.
Further comments received 7 August 2017:
Further to my earlier email, I have been back to visit the site and seen the access since action has been taken to clear vegetation overgrowth from around the access (overhanging the highway) and I am confident that with this visibility in place the access is safe and satisfactory for the proposed uses and can therefore confirm that the County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION to the proposals.
Page 9 5. Other consultations 5.1 Reading Agricultural Consultants
I write further to your letter of 12th July regarding the planning application submitted on behalf of Mr Dan Green for permission to site, for a temporary period, a mobile home at Cider Apple Orchard, Chantmarle Lane, Chalmington for occupation by an agricultural worker. Your letter of instruction requests that Reading Agricultural Consultants Ltd (RAC) undertake an appraisal of the application with respect to the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Policy HOUS6 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015.
In preparing this response I have had regard to:
· the documents submitted with the planning application; and, · observations and comments made during a site visit on 18th July 2017.
I apologise for the delay in providing a formal response.
Background
1. The background and details of the activities that are to be established and undertaken at Cider Apple Orchard, Chalmington are set out in application documents, and only a summary is provided here.
2. The holding extends to approximately 7.9ha (19.42 acres) and is a 40-year-old apple orchard planted with seven varieties of cider apple trees; a total of 2,600 trees. The holding is serviced via a Council-maintained highway and has the benefit of a steel portal-framed barn. There is a hard standing surrounding the barn and a track running around the northern boundary of the orchard.
3. The orchard currently produces approximately 80 tonnes of harvested apples that are used to produce Dorset Star cider onsite that is sold locally; surplus apples are sold. At present, some nine varieties of cider are being produced however opportunities to develop further brands and products are being explored. In 2017 some 16,000 litres of Dorset Star cider was sold however there is the ability to produce approximately 50,000 litres from 80 tonnes of apples, once the systems and processes can be properly developed and managed.
4. Alongside the apple and cider production, Mr Green also plans to breed and rear pigs with 10 breeding sows, producing 160 weaners. The majority will, in time, be kept and reared for meat but in the short-term some may be sold as weaners. The pigs will be fed apple pomace - a by-product from the current cider production business.
5. In addition, the applicant proposes to rear and keep 100 laying ducks and 100 table geese each year. The ducks are kept all year and produce eggs which are sold locally; the geese are reared from February onwards ready for the Christmas market. These also both work alongside the apple orchard, with the ducks clearing pests that damage the fruit; the geese graze the orchard.
Page 10 6. Finally, Mr Green proposes to run a glamping site with a total of 5 shepherd's huts. These will be spread across The Orchard in existing clearings. The application seeks permission for a log cabin to service the needs of the campers with the provision of a farm shop café/tap room to sell home grown produce including cider and pork products. A shower and toilet block (5.5m x 5.5m) and a reception area to service the glamping accommodation will also be situated within this log cabin. For avoidance of doubt, RAC does not comment on the appropriateness of this element of the development - although clearly the income from the glamping part of the business model.
7. The applicant avers that in order to operate this diverse range of enterprises properly, it is essential that a key worker is readily available at most times. The application seeks permission to site a residential mobile home on the unit for a 3-year temporary period to enable the viability of the project to be established.
Development Plan Framework
8. The Development Plan includes the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), published in March 2012. The NPPF is all about sustainable development and the Ministerial Foreword notes:
“The purpose of planning is to help achieve sustainable development. Sustainable means ensuring that better lives for ourselves don't mean worse lives for future generations. Development means growth. We must accommodate the new ways by which we will earn our living in a competitive world... sustainable development is about positive growth - making economic, environmental and social progress for this and future generations. The planning system is about helping to make this happen...”
9. Paragraph 28 deals with rural and agricultural development and notes inter alia:
"Planning policies should support economic growth in rural areas in order to create jobs and prosperity by taking a positive approach to sustainable new development. To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:
· support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well designed new buildings; · promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses. . ."
10. Paragraph 55 deals with residential development in the countryside and states:
“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.
Page 11 Local planning authorities should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances such as: the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside...”
11. Local Plan policies are set out in the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015.
Rural workers' dwellings are dealt with at Policy HOUS6, which states inter alia:
"Other Residential Development Outside Defined Development Boundaries iv) New housing for rural workers (full-time workers in agriculture, horticulture, and other rural businesses), located outside the defined development boundaries, will be permitted provided that it can be demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live at or near their place of work."
12. Although no specific tests are provided to assist in the assessment of such applications, the supporting paragraph states:
".. .In considering proposals for rural workers' dwellings, the councils will need to establish that the accommodation is essential to the functional requirements of the business. It will also be necessary to establish that the business is financially sustainable in the long term, particularly where the proposal is for a permanent dwelling. The councils will also give consideration to the availability of alternative accommodation on the holding or nearby; and whether a dwelling on the holding has been sold recently on the open market. The size of the proposed dwelling should also be appropriate to the needs of the business and positioned where it will effectively meet the functional needs. A temporary dwelling may be acceptable in the case of new businesses that cannot yet show financial soundness but where it has been established that there is a functional requirement for on site accommodation."
The Appraisal
Essential Need
13. The plans for this site include:
· the managing, harvesting, processing of apples for the manufacture of cider and apple-related products; · the keeping, breeding and rearing of pigs (up to 10 sows will be kept); · the keeping, breeding and rearing of ducks for egg production; · keeping, breeding and rearing of geese for sale at Christmas; · the provision of camping. and, each of these elements has differing needs.
14. The activities that are proposed to be undertaken at Chalmington, with the exception of the camping, are similar in scale and nature to those that are undertaken at Strongs Orchard at Waytown (in the WDDC area).
Page 12 RAC was retained in 2009 to assess the need, or otherwise, for a residential presence to provide for the needs of apple growing/processing with pig production and advised the Council was that there was no essential need.
15. Following a refusal of planning permission this issue was examined at appeal and when the Inspector considered the needs of the business "in the round" he noted – against the need to live on site:
"Although there are times when work is at a peak, especially during fruit harvesting when temporary additional workers are required, activities such as harvesting and pruning do not need a residential presence.
The evidence about the need for an on-site residential presence to safeguard the apple blossom against weevil is unconvincing.
The same applies to ... the fact that during recent heavy snow, the lanes around the appeal site were impassable by vehicle.
The polytunnel could be liable to damage by severe weather such as high wind or heavy snow [but] I find it difficult to believe that damage control needs to be so immediate that simple safeguards and attention to weather forecasts would not be sufficient'.
16. In favour of the need to live on site - he noted:
"I can see that the cost of installing equipment such as temperature sensors able to send a telephone warning could be a burden on a developing small enterprise of this type.
I can also appreciate the risk that the fruit crop could be vulnerable if the blossom were to be affected by unexpected frost.
The appellant evidently intends the cider and vinegar vats to be well insulated to help maintain temperature control. Even so, I can accept that for monitoring purposes, an on-site presence would be highly desirable, perhaps falling marginally into the "essential" category
[The] keeping of poultry and bees would be helped if he and his family were able to continue living at the site.
The fact that previous owners of the orchard have not been able to make it commercially viable suggests that the future of the orchard without the dwelling would be doubtful..
Allowing the dwelling to be retained, even temporarily, would help the orchard based enterprise to diversify and so help the survival of the orchard.
The undisputed evidence that previous owners of the orchard have been unable to operate it profitably suggests that without the kind of diversified enterprise which Mr and Mrs Strong are trying to develop, it would be difficult for the orchard to survive commercially - and it is only the diverse operation as a whole which could justify the need for a dwelling"
Page 13 17. Overall, the Inspector concluded:
"In summary, I find that on the issue of functional need, there are arguments both ways. No single point is compelling; but taking them all together, I judge on balance that the development meets the criteria in PPS 7 and local plan policy HS6 sufficiently to justify a temporary permission. This is a borderline conclusion which I have reached by a very narrow margin and despite having reservations on several matters".
18. I consider the same arguments to be entirely appropriate to this application - with apple growing and processing, and the keeping of pigs and poultry.
19. The keeping of sows and their associated piglets also generates needs. Each sow should be appropriately monitored during the farrowing process to ensure that neither she nor the piglets get into difficulty - with approximately one-two farrowings per month to ensure a steady supply of weaners is available. These piglets also need careful monitoring to ensure they are receiving adequate milk and solid feeds, and in the event of sows being unable to provide adequate milk for the litter some piglets may need to be hand-reared. As noted above the pigs will be farrowed throughout the year thus generating supervisory and welfare needs throughout the year.
20. And, finally the poultry are at risk of predation in the absence of an on-site presence. Day-old goslings are reliant on heat provided by gas heaters and electrical lamps that need to be monitored by the applicant and turned on and off as needed - they cannot properly be automated on an operation of this diverse scale. Although the management of these heaters is relatively "easy" it would be inappropriate and unsatisfactory for a stockman to leave the birds unattended for long periods of time. If the heaters were to go out, or if the temperature in the brood houses was to rise excessively, the young birds would tend to either huddle for warmth or move away from the heaters - in either event there is the possibility of crowding with some birds being smothered which, in addition to the obvious animal welfare issues, would result in the profitability of the enterprise being reduced.
21. Finally, the applicant raises the issue of security which, whilst not intended previously to carry much weight in a debate about essential need, is also relevant where stock is at risk from trespass, vandalism and potential theft.
22. Overall, I consider there is an essential need for close supervision on this unit.
Financial sustainability
23. Budgets have been prepared that set out the likely, or forecast, profitability of the unit. Whilst many of the figures cannot be compared against standard data I have reviewed the figures and consider them a reasonable estimate of likely income and costs. Once the data is stripped out, it suggests income streams of:
Page 14 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 % Income
Eggs 1,104 3,324 3,324 3 Geese 6,480 6,480 6,480 5 Piglets 5,592 5,172 4,968 4 Pork 2,100 3,600 5,400 4 Wholesale cider 29,400 29,400 29,400 23 Cider apples 5,000 3,500 2,000 2 Retail cider 12,000 24,000 42,000 33 Other apple products 365 1,990 2,750 2 Tours 460 1,080 3,790 3 Camping 11,375 21,466 26,703 21
73,876 100,012 126,815 100
24. Less than a quarter of the planned income is derived from non-agricultural items (camping and tours) and the majority comes from agriculture. (RAC consider the production of cider to be ancillary to the growing of applies and thus a legitimate activity allied to agriculture).
25. Costs show a similar distribution, with 25% directly attributable to non-agricultural activities.
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 % Costs
Poultry 5,418 5,418 5,418 8 Pigs 1,797 1,977 2187 3 Cider 25,731 28,091 31,751 45 Camping 15,758 17,147 17,670 25 Overheads 12,181 12,241 12,816 18 60,885 64,874 69,842
Profit 12,991 35,138 56,973
26. Overall, the budgets appear comprehensive and reasonable. Whether the business can actually achieve these levels of forecast profit will (subject to the grant of temporary planning permission) be determined in three years' time, but the business has a reasonable prospect of achieving viability within three years.
27. I was recently involved in a planning appeal where the Inspector reported:
"Turning to the proposed viability of the suggested enterprise, the appellant has submitted a Business Plan which sets out estimated costs and revenue for the proposed operation. There is some dispute regarding the trading price of alpacas and the future health of the alpaca industry in this country generally. However regardless of these matters, when taking into account the cost of the labour identified as required (using the minimum wage), the variable and relevant fixed costs and return on capital, the alpaca and small scale rabbit breeding side of the suggested operation would be relatively close to meeting the viability test in year 3 and 4. This would be the case whether the income from the stress therapy sessions for humans, experience
Page 15 days, birthday parties and meditation courses were taken into account or not. Therefore for the time being it would appear premature to reach a judgement that financial viability for the suggested enterprise would be out of the question at the end of the trial period, Therefore, on the basis that the alpaca and rabbit breeding enterprise is already up and running, there is little reason to dismiss it as not having been planned on a sound financial basis before it has had an opportunity to prove itself during a trial period",
28. I consider that the data presented is reasonable and that "there is little reason to dismiss it as not having been planned on a sound financial basis before it has had an opportunity to prove itself during a trial period',
Other dwellings
29. The only other issue is whether there are other dwellings in the locality that can meet the identified need. I have reviewed the agents' website Rightmove.com and can report that there are no properties (for sale or to rent) that are suitable and available close to the unit that could meet the identified need.
Overall, I consider there is an essential need to live on site to provide for the welfare of livestock, and to monitor biological processes.
I trust that these observations will assist you in your deliberations.
5.2 Council’s Landscape Officer
The Site currently comprises a cider apple orchard of some 7.6 hectares. The orchard is located within the southern aspect of the hamlet of Chalmington. This settlement is quintessentially rural in its character – comprising some ten residential dwellings which are located off a narrow and winding lane. Chalmington House (located ~200m to the NNW of the Site is Grade II Listed. Remnants of former parkland exist around the House and to the immediate north of the Site.
The Site is located in an isolated rural location within the Upper Frome Valley landscape character area. This area is characterised by distinctive undulating landform and a complex geology. The chalk escarpment dominates the landform to the north, east and south of the Site – providing physical and visual containment. Landcover in the vicinity comprises a mix of pasture on the valley floor/chalk uplands and copses/broadleaved woodland on the steeper slopes.
The local area has a secluded, intimate and tranquil character.
The Site in more detail: The existing orchard is an established landscape element within the vicinity.
The Proposals: The ‘Site’s Red Line area’ is quantified as 0.04 hectares within the Application Form – it is in reality ~1.11 hectares.
Page 16 The proposals comprise the following: The installation of 5 No. Shepherds Huts with composting toilets and allocated parking space Erection of a Taproom Café/Shower Block (timber elevations) Woodchip Boiler Shed (Timber construction) Siting of a temporary ‘Mobile Home’ (Timber elevations 16700 x 6500 x 3650). This is actually a sizeable log cabin structure and I would dispute that it would qualify as ‘mobile’? Additional parking spaces (9 No.) Agricultural livestock area (for 10 No. breeding sows) and ducks/geese.
Visual Sensitivity – Impact on views: The Orchard occupies a gently sloping site where the fruit trees run roughly north-south across the Site. The Site is bordered by ‘D’ class roads to the south and west. The road that runs from the A37 towards the Site (Stags Folly/Charity Bottom) is hedged and the existing vegetation provides good visual screening of the Site at present from the motorists’ perspective. This level of visual screening will reduce during the winter months – enabling glimpsed views of the proposed new buildings and shepherds huts. There is a gateway off this road (in the southern corner of the Site) where close-range views are attainable into the Site. A number of the Shepherds Huts/associated vehicles would be visible within this view.
The Chalmington to Frome St Quintin lane runs along the western boundary of the Site. The main access to the Site exists off this lane and comprises a double-gated opening. The gateway allows close-range views into the Site. The existing barn (southern end elevation) is visible within this view (at close range) and is set against the wider backdrop of established trees/the orchard planting. In terms of the proposals – the existing barn/orchard trees would largely screen the Taproom/Café and Staff accommodation from the Site entrance. Partial views of the Staff Accommodation would be possible during the winter months. Additional vehicular presence/movements within the Site would form new visual elements.
The periphery of the Site is generally well vegetated with established trees/unmanaged hedging. The existing vegetation is predominantly deciduous – and ‘filtered’ views through to the Site and buildings would be possible during the winter months.
To the immediate south of the Site is the dramatic landform of Castle Hill (a scheduled monument and hillfort). A substantial area of this Hill is open access land – where panoramic views can be attained from the summit. Partial views of the Site can be achieved from elevated sections of Castle Hill – where the majority of the proposed development may potentially be visible during the winter months. This Hill is particularly popular with local residents during the winter - especially when it snows.
There is little reference to ‘lighting’ within the Application. The Site currently has no mains power supply – so further clarification would be required in order to adequately assess the potential effects of lit facilities within this setting.
Page 17 Landscape Sensitivity: The proposed built development is largely concentrated around the existing barn and the perimeters of the Site. No tree/hedge removal is proposed. There are Tree Protection Orders along the western boundary – covering the copse known as Chalmington Firs and individual trees bordering the lane. The proposed ‘main agricultural livestock’ area is indicated to occupy a section of the western boundary – where the existing pastoral land cover would be more ‘intensively managed’ through the introduction of 10 No. breeding sows. The protected area and individual trees would need to be safeguarded from any harm arising from the proposed livestock management. The trees within Chalmington Firs may have already been compromised due to previous depositions of soil materials. The Applicant has verbally stated (during a Site meeting held on the 31st July) that he intends using the Chalmington Firs copse as part of the livestock area – which has significant implications for the protected trees. There is no mention of pig or duck housing – details of which should be submitted.
The AONB designation is underpinned by a number of Special Qualities. The following:
Qualities are considered particularly susceptible to the effects of this proposal: Undeveloped rural character Tranquillity and remoteness Uninterrupted panoramic views to appreciate the complex pattern and textures of the surrounding landscapes Dark night skies A rich heritage (recognising the Site lies within the settings of a scheduled hill fort and Listed building).
Turning to ENV1 (Landscape, Seascape, and Sites of Geological Interest) and (i) “Development which would harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset AONB or Heritage Coast, including their characteristic landscape quality and diversity, uninterrupted panoramic views, individual landmarks, and sense of tranquillity and remoteness, will not be permitted”- the proposed change of use has the potential to significantly affect the tranquillity of this area. Extremely low levels of ambient noise are experienced at present and the increase in vehicular use/ introduction of a Tap Room Café and possible cider tours will inevitably lead to higher levels of noise. The introduction of livestock will also have a significant impact on the tranquillity (refer also to ENV16 Amenity where proposals for development “do not generate a level of activity or noise that will detract significantly from the character and amenity of the area or the quiet enjoyment of residential properties”). The lack of information on opening hours and predicted levels of visitors to the site will all influence the perception of tranquillity.
In respect of ENV1(ii) The proposed built development will be concentrated at the lower level of the Orchard in the vicinity of the existing barn – which will help in minimising the visual effects. The elevational treatments would be sympathetic to the rural setting (ie timber cladding). The development would not significantly adversely affect the character or visual qualities of the local landscape.
Page 18 Turning to ENV10 (i) the proposals will not contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness as they will lead to an increase of built structures within the orchard. However – the proposed buildings are located in close proximity to an existing barn and will be partly screened by existing vegetation. The proposed Shepherds Huts/Cars will be visible within local views – mainly from the vantage points to the south and would be better located within the main barn/café/accommodation area.
The requirements for lighting require clarification as this has the potential to be detrimental to the existing unlit character of the surroundings.
The Application Form provides no information on the ‘hours of opening’ or the level of parking provision to be provided for ‘tours/events’? These details should be clarified in order to assess the degree of acceptable integration within the Site.
To conclude – This is a sensitive site - both visually and in landscape terms owing to its location within the AONB, proximity to open access land/the public highway/heritage assets/ and adjacent residential properties.
The proposed change of use would appear to apply to the ‘whole’ of the orchard holding – I would query whether the Red Line should be altered to reflect this? Whilst the proposed development is unlikely to give rise to ‘significant’ landscape/visual effects – it does have the capacity to adversely affect the local rural character and tranquillity. The intensification of use proposed will, without doubt, change the existing rural perception. Further clarification is required on opening hours/level of traffic/parking/lighting/signage and means of stock enclosure and housing in order to fully assess the landscape and visual implications.
5.3 Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer
The site is situated outside a conservation area but there are trees that are included within a tree preservation order. These are situated along the boundary and in the southeastern corner.
However, I note the design statement as taking account of these and I also note that the proposed development is to the north of the site so there appears to be no conflict with the protected trees.
If you were minded to approve the application, a condition ensuring no encroachment within the RPA of these trees and no storage of materials would be welcome. Otherwise I have no objection to the application.
5.4 Natural England
No objection, subject to biodiversity avoidance/mitigation
Issues concerning protected species The application falls within the scope of the Dorset Biodiversity Protocol, adopted by your authority, which requires the submission of a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan for all developments that affect sites greater than 0.1 ha.
Page 19 Natural England therefore recommends that any permission is subject to a condition to prepare and implement a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan, that has been approved by the Dorset County Council’s Natural Environment Team (NET). Provided the Biodiversity Mitigation Plan has been approved by the DCC NET Team and is made a condition of any permission then no further consultation with Natural England is required.
The Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) The site lies within the Dorset AONB. Your authority should be satisfied that their decision in respect to this proposal meets their statutory duty of regard (Section 85 Countryside and Rights of Way Act, 2000) to the purposes of conserving and enhancing the landscape designated as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and is in line with National Policy, Local Plan policy and AONB Management Plan policy.
Planning policy does not prohibit major development within designated landscapes, but clearly states that the conservation of the natural beauty within National Parks, the Broads and AONBs should be given great weight in planning policies and development control decisions and that major development within these areas should not take place, except in exceptional circumstances. We would draw you attention to Paragraph 115 and 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012).
Following amendment to the scheme and re-consultation on 30 November 2017:
Natural England note the revised plans and the negative bat/biodiversity check (dated 29/08/2017) accompanying this application and refer you to the response provided previously for this site. In addition to the recommendations in this letter, we would also recommend the advice of the Environment Agency is sought in relation to flood risk for the site.
5.5 Environmental Health
Following amendment to the scheme and re-consultation on 30 November 2017:
...having looked at the original application for the first time, I have some concerns. It will be for the planning authority to determine whether my comments can now be taken into account.
My concerns/comments are as follows:
1. Wood chip boiler. It is very probable that this would necessitate an application to the Council Environmental Health Team for an environmental permit. There will be an application fee, annual subscription charge, and conditions attached to the permit. The applicant is advised to secure the advice of an independent consultant in this regard. Burning of woodchip is a process requiring considerable technical expertise in order to secure the granting of a permit and subsequent compliance with pollution control conditions.
Page 20 It is unlikely that all of the associated infrastructure, storage, chipping, drying facility etc could be accommodated in the shed shown. Wood chipping can be very noisy, and the Environmental Health department would expect the nature of operations to be clarified, potentially with an acoustic consultant’s report to demonstrate the level of any effect of the nearby residential properties.
NB.The wood chip boiler has been deleted from the application
2. The application shows five glamping units with wood burners. These, combined with the proposed wood chip boiler, will potentially form a considerable source of wood smoke. The applicant should be required to demonstrate that this will not cause nuisance or undue loss of amenity to nearby properties.
3. In relation to sewage disposal, the applicant will probably need to obtain an environmental permit from the Environment Agency (as mentioned in the application documents). If a permit is not required, the applicant should demonstrate with a technical report produced by a competent person that sewage produced on site can be satisfactorily disposed of without risk to public health.
4. The applicant should demonstrate that no direct or strongly reflected artificial light is visible from nearby properties. If this is not avoidable, the applicant should provide a technical report to demonstrate that artificial light from the proposed development will meet the relevant criteria in The Institution of Lighting Engineers ‘GUIDANCE NOTES FOR THE REDUCTION OF OBTRUSIVE LIGHT’
5. The applicant should be required to demonstrate that there are adequate containment measures to prevent animal manure being washed onto nearby land, eg at times of high rainfall or high groundwater levels.
Conditions:
1. It is recommended that a condition be added preventing the playing of amplified music at any time.
5.6 Council’s Technical Services
The site is in flood zone 1 according to the EA’s flood risk maps which indicates land that has a low probability of fluvial flooding. However the EA’s surface water maps indicate that there is a high risk of surface water flooding through a section of the site. The surface water flood area is mapped from topographical data so although not an exact science, it gives a general idea of possible problem areas and flood routes. We do not have any historical records of flood issues at this location although I don’t doubt that locally there have been problems with surface water flooding in the past as reported by local residents. Although there will be a modest increase in impermeable surfaces, I don’t think the proposals will necessarily worsen the existing flood risk and much of the development appears to be sited away from the surface water flood route.
Page 21 The applicant should nevertheless consider how surface water will be disposed of and given the reported surface water flood issues, be satisfied that the proposals will not exacerbate or be affected by the existing flood risk and ensure that the septic tank will be sited in a position where it is less likely to be affected by possible surface water flooding.
6. Other representations 6.1 A number of material representations have been received during the course of the application, including some following amendments to the scheme. Officers deduce that these comprise:
Objections: 41 Support: 12 Comments: 13
It has been acknowledged that some have commented more than once.
A representation from the applicant and another from their partner has also been received during the course of the application.
The material considerations highlighted in the representations have been summarised as follows:
Support
- Good for tourism and local economy and would support other local facilities; - Sympathetic within landscape; - No harm to highway safety; - Dwelling on site would allow orchard to be managed better.
Objections
- Localised flooding and increased run off; - Noise and disturbance from holiday let use; - Unsustainable location relative to public transport connections; - Harmful visual impact within landscape; - Harm to tranquillity of area; - Highway safety; - Impact on local ecology; - Unnecessarily large floor areas of buildings; - Odour and noise from animals; - Light pollution; - Not a farm diversification project; - Grazing of animals would have harmful impact on TPO trees; - Overdevelopment of site; - Loss of privacy.
No further representations have been received following deferral at the January 2018 committee meeting.
Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com.
Page 22 7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
8. Relevant Planning History
App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer
9. The Development Plan
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 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 and Sites of geological interest · ENV2 – Wildlife and habitats · ENV4 – Heritage Assets · ENV5 – Flood risk · ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting · ENV12 - The design and positioning of buildings · ENV13 - Achieving high levels of environmental performance · ENV16 – Amenity · SUS2 – Distribution of development · ECON1 – Provision of employment · ECON7 – Caravan and camping sites · ECON8 - Diversification of land-based rural businesses · HOUS6 - Other residential development outside DDBs · COM7 - Creating a safe and efficient transport network · COM9 - Parking standards in new development
10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 AONB Management Plan 2014-19 10.2 WDDC Landscape Character Area 2009
11. Other Material Planning Considerations 11.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Part 1: Building a strong, competitive economy Part 3: Supporting a prosperous rural economy Part 6: Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes Part 7: Requiring good design Part 11: Conserving and enhancing the natural environment Part 12: Conserving and enhancing the historic 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.
Page 23 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. Planning issues 12.1 Principle of development
In terms of principle, policy SUS2 of the Local Plan stipulates 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. As such there are a limited types of development that could be considered acceptable and these can include proposals for rural workers’ housing, farm diversification schemes, new employment and tourism. However, the acceptability of these is subject to compliance with other policy considerations that are afforded weight in the overall planning balance.
12.2 Essential need for the mobile home
In the applicants planning statement the justification for the mobile home on the site is stated as necessary “to run and oversee the glamping business as well as look after the livestock present.” The statement also adds that there is a functional need to staff the café/taproom and to prune and harvest the 2600 apple trees on site.
12.3 The statement mentions that “a permanent residence on site will provide much needed security as theft of alcohol and in more recent years theft of poultry has become more of a problem”. However, in the consideration of essential need, matters of security are not in themselves considered as sufficient justification for an on site residential presence.
12.4 In terms of agricultural or land-based activity on the unit, some 80 tonnes of apples are harvested from the orchard each year and this is used to make around 16,000 litres of cider on site. The cider is sold on to local pubs, restaurants and at events. Surplus apples are sold off to third party cider producers. The planning statement claims that there is the ability to produce some 50,000 litres of cider from the 80 tonnes of apples. The statement also contends that the most profitable option is to sell the cider retail from the premises. The applicant plans to explore other apple products from the harvest, such as cider vinegar, cider brandy and ice cider.
12.5 There is no dispute with regard to fruit growing falling within the s336 (of the 1990 Act) definition of ‘agriculture’. The production of apple juice and fermented version i.e. cider from the apples grown within the holding can be fairly readily treated as an ancillary activity to horticulture. The later principle was examined in the Millington Court judgement (Millington v SSE [1999]) whereby a High Court judgement on wine making was overturned by the Court of Appeal and held that making wine from grapes or cider from apples on the scale involved in that instance was a normal activity for a farmed engaged in growing grapes or apples. Factors that can affect this view include the scale of production, the type of produce and whether any produce is brought in from outside the holding.
Page 24 12.6 Alongside the cider production business, the applicant plans to rear 10 sows and produce 160 weaners each year which are then sold, with some kept for direct sales. The pigs would be fed the apple pomace (by-product of cider) and will be housed in pig arcs as is standard agricultural practice and electric fencing will contain them away from any falling fruit. Pigs routinely forage within woodland without damaging the trees so the area identified for the accommodation of livestock is considered acceptable. The continued use of the site for agriculture of any kind is permitted and does not require planning permission.
12.7 Further to this, the applicant would rear and keep 100 laying ducks and 100 table geese each year on site. The ducks would provide a pest management service on the site, reducing the amount of damage to the fruit, whilst the geese would graze the orchard. The eggs from the ducks would be sold locally and the geese would be reared for the Christmas market.
12.8 During the course of the application the applicant has confirmed that the poultry will be moved around the orchard in a rotation utilising electric fencing to keep them in and kept overnight in movable sheds to protect from natural predators. They will be moved away from the trees before harvest, which is in keeping with the agricultural code of best practice to fatten ready for the Christmas market.
12.9 Policy HOUS6 of the Local Plan sets out that: “New housing for rural workers (full time workers in agriculture, horticulture, and other rural businesses), located outside the defined development boundaries, will be permitted provided that it can be demonstrated that there is an essential need for a worker to live at or near their place of work.”
12.10 Similarly, paragraph 55 of the NPPF states that LPAs should avoid new isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances, such as the essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside.
12.11 The supporting text for policy HOUS6 provides some assistance, stating: “…there will be some cases where the viability of an agricultural, forestry or other enterprise for which a rural location is essential, depends upon a worker being resident on site to oversee the operation of the enterprise. In considering proposals for rural workers’ dwellings, the councils will need to establish that the accommodation is essential to the functional requirements of the business. It will also be necessary to establish that the business is financially sustainable in the long term, particularly where the proposal is for a permanent dwelling. The councils will also give consideration to the availability of alternative accommodation on the holding or nearby; and whether a dwelling on the holding has been sold recently on the open market. The size of the proposed dwelling should also be appropriate to the needs of the business and positioned where it will effectively meet the functional needs. A temporary dwelling may be acceptable in the case of new businesses that cannot yet show financial soundness but where it has been established that there is a functional requirement for on-site accommodation.”
Page 25 12.12 To assist in the appraisal of essential need, the LPA consult with independent land agent Reading Agricultural Consultancy (RAC) the full formal comments of whom are included in the Consultation section of the report (above).
12.13 Taking the comments from RAC into account, officers consider that there is a functional requirement for on-site accommodation on the holding to oversee the operation of the cider production processes and livestock management.
12.14 In their report RAC draw comparisons between the current proposals at Chalmington and those allowed at appeal at Strong Orchard in Waytown (Ref: APP/F1230/C/09/2114764). In this appeal case the main activity concerned horticulture for cider production. As part of the “diverse” activities, the Waytown case also included topiary and bee keeping, which were regarded as ‘ancillary to agriculture’. In this case, the Inspector felt that on balance, by a very narrow margin, there was an essential need to justify a temporary residential unit on site. RAC explain in their report that, being similar in scale and nature to the Waytown case, the same arguments are entirely appropriate and can be applied to the current application at Chalmington.
12.15 The current application not only proposes to continue cider production on site at a similar scale to that in the Waytown case, but introduce livestock activities which contribute to the horticulture process, whilst having their own associated needs (as detailed in RAC’s report). Officers therefore consider that in addition to there being an essential functional need for the close monitoring of the biological processes (fruit crop and temperature control of the cider), there would be an essential functional requirement for the close supervision of the livestock to be kept on the holding.
12.16 With regard to the financial soundness of the enterprise, RAC and officers consider and maintain that the financial projections that have provided over a 3 year period reflect reasonable estimates of the likely income, costs and the profitability of the business and demonstrate that the business would have a reasonable prospect of achieving a sustainable profit within the 3 years. The figures take into account the early stages of the business, with markets and sales slowly being found and developed, whilst also acknowledging seasonal fluctuation with some of the income streams. The full financial projections provided to the LPA also take the wages of part time labour requirements into account. It is acknowledged that the figures are forecasts at this stage and so to provide an opportunity for the financial soundness to be tested, especially in light of the applicant’s intention to introduce the livestock to run in conjunction with the horticulture business, the proposal for a temporary mobile home on the site is accepted and can be conditioned accordingly.
12.17 In terms of the size of the mobile home, at some 108.5 square metres the residential unit would be of a size that would be commensurate with the needs of the holding and not be regarded as excessive, certainly relative to other rural workers’ dwellings in the district. Sited in front of the orchard and adjacent to the existing cider barn, the mobile home would be well related to the existing built form on site and conveniently sited to undertake the activities required to meet the established functional need.
12.18 Based on the points raised, officers consider that, on balance, there is an
Page 26 essential need for an on-site residential presence. To allow future assessment of the business as to whether a permanent residence would be justified, the proposal for a temporary dwelling is considered appropriate and can be conditioned accordingly.
12.19 Extension to existing barn to form taproom/café/farm shop
The extension to the existing cider barn would form the new taproom, café and farm shop on site. The applicants have indicated that their desire is to sell home grown produce, including: cider, cider vinegar, duck eggs, geese, apple smoked bacon. The applicants have also indicated that small glamping essentials would also be sold.
12.20 The applicants state that this facility would be for the benefit of the guests staying on site but it would also be open to the public on a “flexible basis”. It would be open 7 days a week and for the revised hours detailed earlier in the report.
12.21 The Economy chapter in the Local Plan identifies that the strategic approach to employment development is to encourage and support:
“A continuing supply of land and premises suitable for employment uses is needed, of a type and scale appropriate to the characteristics of the local area… The development of new retail and town centre uses will be directed to the town centres of Weymouth, Dorchester, Bridport, Sherborne and Lyme Regis. Outside the town centres, smaller scale development of shops, financial and professional services, food and drink, office, leisure and community uses will be directed towards local centres...”
12.22 It is clear therefore that, in general, buildings that are to be used for food and drink and retail should be directed towards sustainable local areas. Located about 1 km away from the small settlement of Cattistock, the facility would not be located in a local centre and, thus, would not meet the strategic economic aims of the Local Plan.
12.23 However, there can be some flexibility when small-scale employment development is proposed in rural areas.
12.24 Paragraph 28 of the NPPF provides support for a prosperous rural economy. It states that:
“To promote a strong rural economy, local and neighbourhood plans should:
● support the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, both through conversion of existing buildings and well-designed new buildings; ● promote the development and diversification of agricultural and other land-based rural businesses; ● support sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments that benefit businesses in rural areas, communities and visitors, and which respect the character of the countryside. This should include supporting the provision and expansion of tourist and visitor facilities in appropriate locations where identified needs are not met by existing facilities in rural service centres; and
Page 27 ● promote the retention and development of local services and community facilities in villages, such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship.”
12.25 The supporting text for policy ECON1 states that “While the plan generally seeks to concentrate development in the areas which are most accessible, it is recognised that small-scale employment development in rural areas, through well-designed new buildings on the edge of existing settlements, the re-use and adaptation of existing buildings, or farm diversification schemes, is of value even though such development is unlikely to be served by public transport. Proposals for development in less accessible locations may be required to provide information on the long term viability of the enterprise and a clear justification of why such a location is needed".
12.26 Policy ECON8 of the Local Plan, which provides support for diversification of land-based rural businesses, states that diversification projects for the use of land or buildings for non-agricultural employment purposes will be supported provided they are in keeping with the rural character and comprise: the use of land; or the re-use or replacement of an existing building or buildings; or new ancillary development provided that there are no redundant buildings capable of re-use/replacement.
12.27 It is appreciated that the taproom and café function would largely facilitate the retail sales, whilst also elevating the ‘visitor experience’ of the site by tasting products produced just metres away from where it was grown, harvested, manufactured and grazed.
12.28 An integral ‘taproom’ within micro-breweries and cider-making facilities is not uncommon. When contained within the main building of production it can provide an immersive and intimate experience of the production process. In this instance, an extension to the barn would allow an intimate experience of what is essentially an agricultural activity, whereby customers and visitors would be positioned and immersed directly between the cider-making facility and the orchard itself. Moreover, the café and farm shop element would allow customers to consume (either on site or off site) other home-grown products to further enhance the experience of sampling ‘local produce’.
12.29 With no available buildings on the holding to re-use or replace, a modest extension to the existing barn is considered appropriate as ‘new ancillary development’ under the diversification policy. As an extension to an existing building, the proposed facility would relate well to existing development and, modest in design, scale and nature, would not compromise the rural character of the area.
12.30 Shepherd’s huts
Support would be forthcoming for the shepherd’s huts under policy ECON7 of the Local Plan. This policy states that proposals for new caravan or camping sites should be well located in relation to existing facilities or make appropriate provision for facilities on site.
Page 28 12.31 As noted, the site is about 1km to the NE of the settlement of Cattistock and can be accessed directly via a public footpath. Although it does not have a defined development boundary, the settlement is recognised as a settlement with a population of 200+ in the Local Plan and does contain a post office shop, tea room and public house as a means of accessible local facilities. The larger village of Maiden Newton, which has more reasonably accessible facilities and a railway station, is a further 2km along public footpaths to the south of Cattistock.
12.32 In terms of on site facilities, each shepherd's hut would contain a compostable toilet and shower. Details of discharge from the latter can be secured by condition. Although not necessarily exclusive to the guests staying on site, the proposed taproom, cafe and farm shop would also provide an on site facility for these guests to use.
12.33 Policy ECON7 of the Local Plan also states that farm diversification projects (for agricultural and other land-based rural businesses) for new caravan and camping sites will be supported, provided they are in keeping with the rural character and the development makes an on going contribution to the business that is diversifying. In this regard, officers are satisfied that the information provided indicates that the glamping elements would help to support the agricultural enterprise and diversify the land-based business on site. The use of the shepherd's huts for holiday let purposes can be secured by way of conditions.
12.34 Criterion iii) of policy ECON7 states that all development under this policy must not, individually or cumulatively, have a significant adverse impact on the distinctive characteristics of the areas landscape, heritage or built environment. As explained in more detail further on in this report, the visual impact of the shepherd's huts would be sympathetic and not out of keeping within the rural setting.
12.35 Officers therefore accept that the shepherd's hut element of the development would be in compliance with policy ECON7 of the Local Plan.
12.36 Impact on the character of the area
As noted, the site lies within the Dorset AONB. Policy ENV1 of the Local Plan holds that development which would harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset AONB, including their characteristic landscape quality and diversity, uninterrupted panoramic views, individual landmarks, and sense of tranquility and remoteness, will not be permitted.
12.37 Criterion ii) of ENV1 states that development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character.
12.38 In terms of siting and design, policies ENV10 and ENV12 of the Local Plan both encourage development to be informed by local character and contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness.
Page 29 12.39 As the Council's Senior Landscape Officer comments, the AONB designation is underpinned by a number of Special Qualities. Those that are considered particularly susceptible to the effects of this proposal include: the undeveloped rural character; the tranquility and remoteness of the area; the uninterrupted panoramic views to appreciate the complex pattern and textures of the surrounding landscapes; the dark night skies; and the peripheral heritage assets.
12.40 The existing barn is visible from the entrance of the site and the side elevation of the extension would similarly be visible. The barn is set against the wider backdrop of established trees and amongst the orchard planting. In terms of visual appearance the proposed extension would relate sympathetically and subordinately to the existing barn. It would be clearly read as a modest lean-to extension to the existing building.
12.41 The temporary mobile home would be single storey in scale and constructed from timber which can be conditioned to be left untreated so it would silver naturally. From the access to the site it would be largely obscured by the extended barn. Officers consider that the new building would be well related to the extended barn and would assimilate well into the verdant backdrop and would not be an obtrusive structure within its setting and wider Dorset AONB landscape when glimpsed from other views around the site during winter months. Such views include those from the scheduled ancient monument of Castle Hill to the south.
12.42 The matter of external lighting has been clarified during the course of the application. The applicants have confirmed that external lighting is to be avoided but there will be some ‘hit and miss’ downward facing lighting over the entrance doors. There would also be low level and low wattage solar lights positioned along the track to mark it out for users of the shepherd’s huts. Such provision is considered reasonable and would be unlikely to cause significant levels of light pollution or significantly impact on the dark skies which characterise AONBs.
12.43 As mentioned the shepherd’s huts would be dotted around the northern part of the holding and would be sited in relatively discreet positions, adjacent to the existing apple trees and plantation around the northern boundary.
12.44 In terms of visual impact within the immediate setting and wider landscape, the existing vegetation around the boundaries of the site, although being deciduous, does provide good visual screening. Even in the winter the trees would filter views into the site. No tree or hedgerow removal is proposed.
12.45 On the whole officers consider that the proposed development would not significantly adversely affect the visual qualities of the immediate setting and scenic beauty of the wider Dorset AONB landscape.
12.46 With regard to heritage assets, the development may be discernible in winter months from the open public land around the scheduled ancient monument of Castle Hill to the south and thus potentially affect the setting of this monument. In this regard, officers consider that owing to the limited visibility of the site and unobtrusive nature of the development within the setting/landscape, the proposals would not be harmful within the setting of the scheduled monument.
Page 30 The nearest listed building to the site is the grade II listed Chalmington Manor located some 250 metres to the NW. Again, owing to the unobtrusive impact of the proposals, in addition to the degree of screening around the site, the change in topography and separations involved, the proposed development would not be harmful to the significance of this heritage asset.
12.47 With these points in mind, officers consider that the visual impact of the proposed development would be acceptable.
12.48 Whilst the applicant has stated that the tranquillity of the area would be one of the selling points of the site for glamping it should be acknowledged that development and any associated levels of activity has the potential to disrupt the tranquillity of the area.
12.49 The hours of operation of the taproom/cafe/farm shop building was raised as a matter of concern during the January committee meeting. A condition to limit the hours of opening is considered necessary with regard to the impact of the development on the character of the AONB and neighbouring amenity (the latter is discussed from para 12.49 of the report).
As mentioned previously, the applicants have now proposed reduced opening hours of 9am to 7pm on Mondays to Saturdays. However it could be argued that more 'normal' retail opening hours with a closing time of 5.30pm would be more appropriate.
Thus, despite the applicant's proposal of a closing time of 7pm, the condition now recommended includes a 5.30pm closing time. With regard to the opening time - 9am is now requested by the applicant as opposed to 11am previously, which is considered to be reasonable. Reduced hours for Sundays (11am to 4pm) is also considered to be acceptable and all these times can be controlled by condition as included in the recommendation.
However Members could, if they wished, amend these times as they felt appropriate.
12.50 Impact on neighbouring amenity
Policy ENV16 of the Local Plan states that: “Proposals for development should be designed to minimize their impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of both existing residents and future residents within the development and close to it.”
12.51 Officers consider that the provision of a modest, single storey temporary mobile home is this location, well separated from the nearest neighbour, would have a minimal impact on residential amenity. The shepherd’s hut, being spread around the northern part of the holding, small, low key in nature and well separated the nearest neighbour would also have a very limited impact on local amenity. Officers consider that the element of development that is likely to generate the greatest impact on neighbouring amenity is the level of activity associated with the taproom, café and farm shop addition.
Page 31 12.52 The extended barn would be in excess of some 80 metres from the nearest residential dwelling of Chalmington Gardens and intercepted by mature trees and the highway. The barn is at least 250 metres from the other properties with the hamlet further north up the road.
12.53 Owing to the scale of the extension, separation and presence of mature intervening vegetation, it is considered that there would be no detriment upon neighbouring amenity in terms of loss of privacy, loss of light, overshadowing or overbearingness.
12.54 Officers accept that there would be more comings and goings to the site and undoubtedly more activity taking place on the holding owing to each element of the development. However, on the whole, officers consider that the proposed development would not result in harm that would significantly jeopardise the amenity of neighbouring properties and other neighbouring land users. The ability and necessity to condition hours of use of the building is key to ensuring this.
12.55 As mentioned above in para. 12.48 above the hours of opening restriction by condition has been reconsidered by the applicant and officers and amended as detailed above and in the recommendation below.
12.56 Flood risk
The site is located within flood zone 1, an area with the least chance of flooding in any year from rivers or seas. However, the issue of localised surface water flooding has been raised in a number of the representations and concern has been raised that the proposed development would exacerbate the impact. It is understood locally that these issues are mostly the result of blocked drains and culverts which have to be periodically cleared of debris, particularly during autumnal months.
12.57 Whilst the Environmental Agency’s flood risk maps indicate that the land would have a low probability of fluvial flooding, the surface water maps indicate that there is a high risk of surface water flooding through a section of the site, close to the existing barn. As detailed by the Technical Services team, the surface water flood area is mapped from topographical data so although not an exact science, it gives a general idea of possible problem areas and flood routes.
12.58 The applicants have indicated that, aside from the roofs of the mobile home and barn extension, there would be no increase in hard surfacing on site. The applicants have also indicated a willingness to install tanks to harvest rainwater from the roofs to use in the grey water systems, thus reducing water going into the septic tank and permeating into the land. This, in addition to the details of soakaways and other proposed drainage mitigation, can be secured by way of a condition.
12.59 With these points in mind, officers consider that the proposals will not exacerbate the existing flood risk to an extent that would be significantly detrimental with regard to flood risk.
Page 32 12.60 Impact on protected trees and biodiversity
As noted, the SW corner of the holding (known as Chalmington Firs) is designated as a TPO. The applicant intends on keeping the livestock adjacent to this area. It is appreciated that the keeping of pigs in woodland is accepted and common practice. The movement of the pigs can be controlled by electric fencing to prevent any significant damage to important trees on site.
12.61 None of the proposed built form on the site would affect the TPO area and, as such, no objections have been raised by the Council’s Tree Officer in this regard. A condition can be imposed to protect the trees and ensure no materials are stored in this area.
12.62 The applicants have provided a negative bat/biodiversity report concerning the application site which indicates that there are no protected species that would be affected within the application area. Bearing in mind the nature of the proposals, it is satisfied that the proposals would not have a detrimental impact on biodiversity.
12.63 Highway safety and parking provision
As noted, the site has an existing access from the D road. Since the application was submitted some vegetation has been cleared by the access to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. There is an existing track which leads up to the existing barn and areas of hardstanding also already in place for the benefit of the scheme.
12.64 It is acknowledged that the use of the site as proposed would inevitably increase traffic movements to and from the area. However, officers consider that the use is unlikely to have a significantly detrimental impact on highway safety.
12.65 The parking provision is considered adequate for the needs, without overtly ‘urbanising’ or being significantly detrimental to the character of the site.
12.66 Other matters
With regard to CIL, the adopted charging schedule only applies a rate on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. The proposal is for a mobile home which would fall within the parameters of a ‘caravan’ mobile home and thus concerns a change of use of the land for residential purposes, rather than ‘development’ in the form of a dwelling. The proposal is thus not CIL liable.
13 Summary 13.1 Officers consider that, on balance, there is an essential need for on-site residential accommodation to meet the functional needs to the enterprise in accordance with policy HOUS6 of the Local Plan. To allow future assessment of the business and to test the financial soundness, the proposal for a temporary dwelling is considered appropriate.
Page 33 The proposed extension to the barn to form a taproom, cafe and farm shop would be ancillary to the primary agricultural use and support the existing land-based business as an acceptable form of diversification in a suitable location in accordance with policy ECON8 of the Local Plan. This ancillary use can be controlled by condition.
Similarly, the proposed shepherd's huts would be compliant with policy ECON7 of the Local Plan and provide another means of diversifying and supporting the existing land-based business.
Officers consider that the proposed nature and scale of the development would not be significantly detrimental to the special qualities of the Dorset AONB, including the landscape values and tranquillity of the area.
On the whole, officers are satisfied that there are no adverse impacts which, either individually or together, are of sufficient weight to indicate that the proposal should be refused.
The proposed development is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.
14 Recommendation
14.1 Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:
i. The development to which this permission relates must be begun no 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 following approved plans:
Elevations of Staff Accommodation as proposed - Drawing Number SS434/DW/01 received on 23/05/2017 Floor plans and Elevations of Staff Accommodation - Drawing Number SS434/DW/03 received on 23/05/2017 Floor plans and Elevations of shepherds huts - Drawing Number SS434/DW/05 received on 23/05/2017 Location Plan - Drawing Number - SS43/DW/06 Rev 3 received on 29/11/2017 Site Plan - Drawing Number SS434/DW/07 Rev 3 received on 29/11/2017 Proposed Elevations - Drawing Number 2364/06A received on 29/11/2017
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
iii. No development shall commence on each element of the development (i.e. the extension; the mobile home; and the shepherd's huts) until samples of the proposed external facing materials (walls and roofs) for each element hereby approved have been provided on site for inspection and approval in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.
Page 34 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development. iv. No development shall be commenced until a scheme for the disposal of all foul and surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, no part of the development shall be occupied or brought into use until the approved scheme has been fully implemented.
Reason: To minimise the increased risk of surface water flooding and pollution. v. No external lighting shall be erected or installed until details of any external lighting on any buildings or within the application site (including drawings showing the appearance, siting, technical details, orientation, intensity and screening of any lamps) have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To preserve the character and dark skies of the Dorset AONB. vi. The occupation of the mobile home shall be limited to a person solely, or mainly, employed, or last employed, prior to retirement, in the locality in agriculture as defined in Section 336 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or in forestry (including any dependants of such a person residing with him/her) or a widow, or widower, of such a person.
Reason: The site lies in area where new development is restricted to that for which there is an essential need for a rural worker to live on the site. vii. The consent for the mobile home is for a limited period only and expires on [insert date 3 years on from date of decision] or until the agricultural need ceases on the site, whichever period shall be the shorter. At the expiration of the shorter period specified above the use of the land for the siting of the mobile home, hereby permitted, shall be discontinued and the land restored to its former condition on or before that date unless permission is granted on an application made to the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To provide an opportunity for the financial soundness of the business to be tested and to enable the Local Planning Authority to fully consider the effects of the development. viii. The taproom, café and farm shop shall not be used or open to customers for the purposes hereby permitted before 09:00 hours or after 17:30 hours on Mondays to Saturdays; and before 11:00 hours or after 16:00 hours on Sundays and public holidays.
Reason: To protect the tranquillity of the area and amenity of neighbouring residential properties. ix. The shepherd's huts hereby approved shall be used for holiday let purposes only and no shepherd's hut shall be used as the main or sole residence of the occupier.
Page 35 Reason: To ensure that the accommodation is used for holiday let purposes only as the site is inappropriate for permanent residential occupation given its isolated location. x. A register of all persons occupying the holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be kept by, or on behalf of, the owner(s) of the holiday accommodation. The said register shall be made available for inspection during all reasonable hours at the request of a duly authorised office of the Local Planning Authority, for such time as the development continues to be used as holiday accommodation.
Reason: To ensure the accommodation is used for holiday purposes only as the site is inappropriate for permanent residential occupation given its isolated location. xi. The extension to the barn to form a tap room, cafe and farm shop shall be used only for purposes ancillary to the business operations on the agricultural unit known as The Orchard.
Reason: To support the growth and diversification of the rural enterprise operating within the unit known as The Orchard, whilst protecting the rural character of the area and the amenity of neighbouring residential properties. xii. No external storage of goods, materials (including waste materials), plant, machinery, equipment, vehicles, etc shall, at any time, occur within the Root Protection Zone of the Tree Preservation Order area known as ‘Chalmington Firs’ in the south west corner of the holding.
Reason: To ensure that trees and hedges to be retained are adequately protected from damage to health and stability throughout the construction period and in the interests of amenity.
Page 36 Agenda Item 6
Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/17/000152
Application Number: WD/D/17/000152 Full
Registration Date: 23 January, 2017
Application Site: LAND ADJACENT WINDSOR CLOSE, MOSTERTON
Proposal: Erection of 36 dwellings with associated works, including vehicular access, highway improvements, drainage, parking, landscaping and open space (amended scheme).
Applicant: Stonewater Ltd
Ward Members: Cllr A Alford, Cllr P Barrowcliff
Case Officer: David Hodges
1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure; · 35% of the units as affordable housing · Provision and maintenance of the proposed open space · Applicant to fully fund a Traffic Management / calming scheme for the Broadwindsor Road (including the Traffic Regulation Order for the repositioning of the speed limit) and before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and then APPROVE subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 15.1 below.
2. Description of development 2.1 Site is a parcel of land extending to 1.3ha mainly lying to the north of Windsor Close on the south-western edge of Mosterton. The site is a largely flat paddock enclosed by a well-established field hedge on its eastern side and bounded by the rear gardens of 1 – 6 Windsor Close and 1 – 6 Mosterton Cross on its southern side.
2.2 To the northern boundary is a post & rail fence and beyond this is a woodland. Circular public footpaths run through the site, linking into the woodland. Access to the site is from the Broadwindsor lane to the south where there is an existing field gate. The site extends around to the west of Windsor Close where the access point is proposed.
2.3 The site lies wholly within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the Axe Valley Hills Landscape Character Area in the Council’s adopted Landscape Character Areas SPD (2009).
Page 37 2.4 The proposal is a full application for the development of the site for 36 houses. The schedule of proposed dwellings is as follows;
10 No. 2-bed/3 person 76m2 House 17 No. 3-bed/4 person 86m2 House 1 No. 4-bed/8 person 120m2 House 4 No. 2-bed/4 person 70 m2 Bungalow 2 No. 2-bed/3 person 67m2 Bungalow 2 No. 1-bed/2 person 60m2 Bungalow
2.5 The submitted plans state 15 properties will be shared ownership, 12 will be rented and 9 units will be open market properties. The bungalow units are all proposed to be rented. The remaining units are split between the open market and shared ownership tenures. The proposed properties are a range of types with detached units, semi-detached properties and short terraces, 2-storey and single storey dwellings.
2.6 The access runs through the western part of the site with properties fronting onto the Broadwindsor lane and the access road. Two curved terraces front the road as it leads into the remainder of the site. Here a number of dwellings are proposed fronting onto an open space area. A street of bungalows fronts the access road on the southern side backing onto the Windsor Close/Mosterton Cross neighbours. Footpath links are shown connecting into the community woodland to the north.
2.7 The application follows an earlier outline scheme for the residential development of the site (App. No. WD/D/14/001541). This was refused by the Council but allowed on appeal, establishing the principle of the residential development of the site. A second outline application for the residential development of the site was also refused (WD/D/15/000118), however this became academic in light of the Inspector’s approval of the earlier application at appeal shortly after. It should be noted that this application is not a reserved matters submission in relation to the outline approval but a stand-alone application for full planning permission.
2.8 The scheme was originally submitted for 40 units. This has been revised down over two amendments to the proposals currently before members. Amendments were negotiated due to concerns over the impact of the scheme on the landscape character of the AONB and the quality of the layout and design of properties proposed. A reconsultation exercise has been undertaken in respect of the current proposals.
3. Main planning issues · Residential development outside village DDB · Housing land supply · Impact on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty · Neighbour’s living conditions · Highway safety · Provision of affordable housing · Drainage/surface water/foul water · Scale of development in relation to village · Infrastructure
Page 38 4. Statutory Consultations
Parish Council 4.1 Mosterton Parish Council strongly request that this unsustainable application for overdevelopment within the AONB is refused.
Conflict with adopted Local Plan The site lies outside the adopted defined development boundary for Mosterton as identified in the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2011-2031. It is in breach of Policy SUS2. The proposed major development is within the AONB and fails to meet the requirements of a rural exception site. See Fig.1 with the current Local Plan DDB separating the built environment from the AONB identified, and outside of this, the proposed major residential development site is illustrated.
4.2 Sewerage Mosterton Parish Council is in receipt of a letter from South West Water dating from 2008 which advised the sewerage system was working at close to capacity. Although the applicants state they have confirmation from South West Water that, subject to upgrading works, the system could have capacity for additional dwellings, there is no indication of when these works are scheduled to take place. Currently residents in Mosterton regularly suffer from backflow of sewerage following rainfall, and the parish council would seek guarantees from South West Water that all such works would be completed, and the system rigorously tested before any new dwellings be added to the mains sewage system. Policy COM10 must be met in this regard prior to any permission. As it currently stands, the problems associated with the mains sewerage have not been overcome.
4.3 Highways An additional 40 dwellings would generate significant additional traffic, pulling out of the development, onto a single-track country lane, with no pavement available to pedestrians, many of whom could be elderly or children walking to the school.
4.4 Layout of proposed development Concerns were raised about the plots being very small, and close to one another, with houses, not bungalows placed close to existing dwellings, adversely impacting the amenity of neighbouring residents. This significant adverse effect on residential amenity is in clear conflict with Policy ENV16. Similarly, local objection to the setting, design and positioning of this intensive development lead us to question whether Policies ENV10 and ENV12 are adequately supported by the proposed scheme.
A refusal was given by WDDC previously for an application on this site for 10 dwellings on the basis of demonstrable harm caused to the AONB environment (WD/D/15/000118). This application has been submitted for 40 dwellings on the same site, with additional adverse impact on the community woodland to provide the drainage pond.
Page 39 4.5 Footpath The proposal details moving the footpath, through the development (inc. across a proposed highway) not through countryside, as it is currently located.
4.6 Mosterton Village Plan (2015-2020) Mosterton Parish Council have a published Village Plan which details clearly the community’s wish to encourage small developments, not exceeding 10 in size within the adopted Local Plan defined development boundary for Mosterton. The current application is entirely incompatible with the development aspirations set out in the Village Plan and Local Plan.
4.7 Intensive Development The inclusion of road access to further undeveloped AONB land north and east of this proposed scheme and outside the adopted development boundary is of serious concern given the landowner’s marketing already seeks to extend this development site, stating it could “be more intensively developed and the residential area could also be extended.
4.8 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty This major proposed development site is inappropriate in scale to the size of the village and in clear breach of Policy SUS2, being outside of the adopted development boundary. It is within the AONB despite not being a type of development which requires a countryside location. It is not a rural exception site. It is of some concern to the Parish Council that as of 20th March 2017, the Dorset AONB have not been listed as a consultee on the application. We would query this apparent oversight. The NPPF affords special protection to AONB (para. 115) and we would ask this be given appropriate consideration.
4.9 Storm Water The plans indicate an attenuation point for storm water disposal. This is sited within the existing community wood, and will result in significant harm to this established community amenity.
4.10 Sewerage The issue of the sewerage was a material reason for the refusal of permission for the application for 10 dwellings on the same site. No remedial work has been undertaken on the system since that refusal. 40 dwellings will significantly exacerbate the existing backflow and flooding issues experienced in the village.
4.11 Sustainability To say a purely residential major development in the AONB is sustainable is incorrect. The development is clearly not sustainable in environmental or economic terms, offering nothing in terms of employment in the village. It does not bring with it required infrastructure improvements to mitigate the demonstrable harm its impact will cause to the village and existing limited community facilities – threatening to take Mosterton’s population from 604 to around 700 in one single housing development. This is not a defensible approach to sustainable community development and is unacceptable to existing residents and the Parish Council.
Page 40 Mosterton village has a very sparse and reducing bus service which will not enable residents of the development to travel on public transport to work or college.
The development brings no long-term employment benefit to the area, and the area has no employment opportunities for the c.96 residents that would move into the proposed development. The major development would however cause significant demonstrable damage to the immediate AONB environment and local area.
4.12 Highways The lane which all traffic from the development would emerge onto is a single-track road, used by significant numbers of large agricultural vehicles. These, plus additional traffic from the site would all need to merge onto the main road, which is already a dangerous junction to negotiate, many children crossing the road close to the junction in order to access the primary school, or reach the bus stop for the secondary school.
No plans have been included for a pedestrian crossing point to enable primary and secondary children to reach their schools in safety.
4.13 Local Plan At the previous appeal for this site, the lack of an adopted Local Plan was given as a reason for allowing the outline permission for 20 dwellings in June 2015. The Inspector’s detailed examination, approval and the subsequent adoption of the new Local Plan followed in Oct 2015. This new Local Plan includes the approved defined development boundary for Mosterton and details this site as lying outside of this and within the AONB. This more recent successful examination must surely take precedence over the now outdated appeal decision made for a very different scheme and prior to Local Plan adoption.
Cllr Alford was present at the Parish Council meeting and shared information on new government policy in relation to the weight afforded to newly adopted Local Plans and housing land supply. We would ask for clarification on this since the lack of a 5 yr housing land supply appears to be the applicant’s main argument.
Highway Authority 4.14 Following the submission of the revised application documents and drawings the County Highway Authority raises no objection to the proposals, subject to the developer entering into a Section 106 Agreement to fully fund and provide the Traffic Management / calming scheme for the Broadwindsor Road (including the Traffic Regulation Order for the repositioning of the speed limit) and before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and the conditions as set out in 15.1 below.
5. Other consultations South West Water:
5.1 I refer to the above and would advise that South West Water are not satisfied that the public foul drainage network has capacity to support the development without causing downstream sewer flooding and in recognition of this a foul drainage evaluation has been undertaken which has identified
Page 41 the extent of improvements required to allow our support of the development. As such should your Council be mindful to approve the planning application the following condition would need to be imposed as per Section 15.1 below.
DCC Lead Local Flood Authority
5.2 The site falls entirely within Flood Zone 1 (low risk / fluvial flooding) as indicated by the Environment Agency’s (EA) indicative flood modelling, and is not thought to be at (theoretical) risk of surface water flooding. The existing Greenfield site is understood to generate runoff which gravitates north / north-west, towards a small channel to the west and River Axe to the north, both of which have the status of Ordinary Watercourse at this location. Surface water mapping suggests that there may be some theoretical risk to the adjacent highway and along the northern boundary of the site during significant rainfall events
5.3 In compliance with the NPPF, the proposed development must be supported by a strategy of surface water management that is both viable and deliverable. This proposal is supported by a site specific Flood Risk Assessment (FRA). This FRA document outlines a conceptual scheme of surface water management based upon attenuation and regulated discharge to a receiving watercourse, and some assessment of ground conditions, upon which we have accepted that infiltration rates would be unlikely to support the use of soakaways as a viable means of managing surface water.
5.4 On the basis of the additional information and documents listed above we withdraw our previous request/s for a (Holding) Objection, and have no in-principle objection to the proposed development, subject to the attachment of planning conditions (2) and informative (in 15.1 below).
DCC Planning Obligations Manager
5.5 On the basis that the site will be CIL liable I have no particular concerns. There will be a requirement for a s106 for the Littlewindsor Road highway works when agreed – which can be include in the AH s106.
Natural England
5.6 The proposed development site lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Natural England advises that the planning authority uses national and local policies, together with local landscape expertise and information to determine the proposal. In this case Natural England requests that the Dorset AONB Team is fully consulted over any implications of the application to the designated landscape of the AONB. Any decision should take full account the AONB Team’s advice and give the necessary weight to the relevant Dorset AONB Management Plan policies. Provided the Dorset AONB Team is satisfied that the proposals will not harm the protected landscape of the Dorset AONB then Natural England has no further comment on the proposals.
5.7 Natural England notes and welcomes the submission of a DCC NET approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan. Please note that in line with the Dorset Biodiversity Protocol Natural England has not considered the provisions of the NET approved BMP.
Page 42 Provided the full implementation of the approved BMP is made a planning condition then Natural England has no further comment on this aspect of the application.
Wessex Water
5.8 Sewerage at this location is provided by South West Water and we will leave it to them to comment. New water supply connections will be required from Wessex Water to serve this development. We refer the developer to our website.
MOD Safeguarding
5.9 No safeguarding objections.
DCC Rights of Way
5.10 Please note that the proposed works directly affect Footpath W35/14, this will need to be diverted.
WPA Consultants (Contaminated Land)
5.11 The documentation from Ruddelston Geotechnical dated Oct 2015, associated appendices and an Ecological Survey from David Leach dated December 2014 have been reviewed. The Ruddelston reporting is mainly concerned with geotechnical assessment which is not part of this review. Contamination issues can be said to have been assessed within a combined Phase 1 and Phase 2 site investigation. The reporting indicates adherence to technical guidance. A Groundsure environmental data search is evident. Although a few years have elapsed since the reports were prepared it is unlikely that site characterisation has significantly changed.
5.12 The findings of the contamination risk assessment submitted are that there are no significant contaminant linkages to investigate further and that no specific remediation measures are required. This includes matters associated with radon and asbestos. Specifications for footings and concrete have been made in the reporting indicative of naturally occurring sulphate having elevated concentrations in site soils. WPA advises that a closing report should be provided to demonstrate that either unexpected contamination was encountered and appropriately dealt with during development, or that no further such issue arose before. This to be reviewed before the contaminated land planning conditions are deemed as having been met in full.
DCP Environmental Health
5.13 No comments
Dorset Waste Partnership
5.14 No comments
Dorset Councils Partnership Housing Enabling Team
Page 43 5.15 West Dorset District Council’s Housing Register has over 1400 households registered as being in affordable housing need. To address this need the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) suggests that in the region of 104 new affordable dwellings will need to be developed each year. This figure demonstrates that there is a significant level of housing need in West Dorset.
5.16 It is proposed to provide a total of 40 houses; 35% will be affordable units which will be controlled by a S106 agreement in perpetuity. Stonewater states in the proposal that it intends to provide affordable housing above policy requirements, subject to HCA grant funding, although these will not be controlled by a S106 agreement they will provide additional affordable homes across the site. These will funded by the Homes & Community Agency, owned by the Housing Association and will meet the NPFF definition of affordable housing. Consideration needs to be given to the appearance of the affordable rented housing which should be well integrated and not distinguishable from the shared ownership housing. Currently the majority of the rented properties are situated together on the site; it would be beneficial if the mix of houses were further integrated so that there is a genuine assimilation of tenure.
5.17 There is an evident housing need in West Dorset and affordable housing is important to communities, particularly rural ones, where earning levels are substantially lower and average house prices are higher than in urban areas. Although not fitting the normal rural exception site model, this development will be backed by funding from the HCA, reflects the NPFF definition. The design of the development should demonstrate a mixed, well integrated and tenure blind scheme; and should ensure that the affordable housing reflects the identified housing demand with consideration given to the priority of the rural households with a local connection to West Dorset. It will assist in meeting the need for affordable housing in the district and assist with the long term sustainability of the village.
6. Other representations 6.1 45 letters have been received from third parties across the three consultation exercises. These raise the following issues; · Lack of infrastructure · Additional traffic · No. of houses excessive · Increased pollution and noise · Overlooking/loss of privacy · Loss of property values · Flood risk/drainage issues · Loss of views & outlook · Light pollution · More houses not needed · Impacts on wildlife · Broadband can’t support more houses · Crime rates rise when more houses are built in rural areas · Public footpath should not be moved · Excessive increase in size of village/village would be swamped · Not enough jobs locally · Site is outside Defined Development Boundary · Limited bus service, occupiers reliant on cars
Page 44 · Increased parking problems · Impact on AONB/landscape · Precedent for further development outside DDB · Foul water network capacity · If building to take place, bungalows along southern boundary is preferable to large detached houses · Concentration of affordable housing in one part of village · School at capacity · No safe pedestrian route to village school · Access is hazardous · Dwellings akin to 19th century slums · Density out of keeping · Contrary to village plan which only supports small developments · Not 100% affordable and does meet exceptions site criteria
A petition containing 70 signatures was also received.
A letter was received from Sir Oliver Letwin MP on 22 March 2017. This advises that since the appeal decision the Council has adopted its Local Plan “and there has been a shift in government policy in relation to Local Plans and land supply where the Local Plan is of recent date.”
“Given that the current application does not conform with the policies in the Local Plan, and given the latest change in Government policy, I very much hope that your planning committee will reject this application, which seems to constitute significant overdevelopment at this site.”
A further letter from the MP was received on 11 January 2018. This states; “I understand that Mosterton Parish Council is now working towards the production of a neighbourhood plan – and, although such a plan does not yet exist, I hope that the District Council will take full account of the views of the Parish Council about the intensity of this development.”
Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com here.
7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
8. Relevant Planning History
App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer WD/D/14/0015 OUT Residential development R 14 DR 41 Novembe r 2014 WD/D/14/00154 REF Residential development ALW 30 June DR 1 (Appeal) 2015 WD/D/15/0001 OUT Residential development R 19 June DR 18 2015
Page 45 9. The Development Plan
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)
INT1. - PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT ENV1. - LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST ENV2. - WILDLIFE AND HABITATS ENV4. - HERITAGE ASSETS ENV5. - FLOOD RISK ENV9. - POLLUTION AND CONTAMINATED LAND ENV10.- THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING ENV11.- THE PATTERN OF STREETS AND SPACES ENV12.- THE DESIGN AND POSITIONING OF BUILDINGS ENV15.- EFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND ENV16.- AMENITY SUS1. - THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC AND HOUSING GROWTH SUS2. - DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT HOUS1.- AFFORDABLE HOUSING HOUS3.- OPEN MARKET HOUSING MIX HOUS6. - OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES COM1.- MAKING SURE NEW DEVELOPMENT MAKES SUITABLE PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE COM7.- CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK COM9.- PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT COM10. -THE PROVISION OF UTILITIES SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design and Sustainable Planning Guidelines (2009) 10.2 Landscape Character Areas (2009)
11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 None
12. Other Material Planning Considerations National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
12.1 The National Planning Policy Framework was published on 27 March 2012 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
In terms of decision-taking this means: approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless: · any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; · or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
Page 46 12.2 The NPPF also states that: · Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground. (Para. 186) · Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work pro actively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. (Para. 187)
12.3 Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report. 1. Building a strong, competitive economy 6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes 7. Requiring good design 8. Promoting healthy communities 10. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change
12.4 Paragraph 49: “Housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.”
National Planning Practice Guidance
12.5 On 6 March 2014 the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) launched its planning practice guidance web-based resource. This includes the following statement:
“This guidance is intended to assist practitioners. Ultimately the interpretation of legislation is for the Courts but this guidance is an indication of the Secretary of State’s views. The department seeks to ensure that the guidance is in plain English and easily understandable. Consequently it may sometimes be oversimplified and, as the law changes quickly, although we do our best, it may not always be up to date.”
Elements of the Planning Practice Guidance relevant to this application will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
12.6 “How is major development defined in National Parks and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, for the purposes of the consideration of planning applications in these areas?
Planning permission should be refused for major development in a National Park, the Broads or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest. Whether a proposed development in these designated areas should be treated as a major development, to which the policy in paragraph 116 of the Framework applies, will be a matter for the relevant decision taker, taking into account the proposal in question and the local context.
Page 47 The Framework is clear that great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in these designated areas irrespective of whether the policy in paragraph 116 is applicable.”
13. Planning issues Principle of Development
13.1 Mosterton has a Defined Development Boundary (DDB) in the adopted Local Plan. However this site lies outside of the DDB although it is directly adjacent to it, encircling it on two sides. The spatial strategy in Policy SUS2 seeks to deliver greater proportion of development at the larger and more sustainable settlements with Weymouth and Dorchester the highest priority locations for development. Below this, the market towns and settlements in the second tier of the spatial strategy are a focus for development including Beaminster. Where development is to take place in rural areas, Policy SUS2 seeks to direct this to the most sustainable rural locations stating; “development in rural areas will be directed to the settlements with defined development boundaries, and will take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement.” As the site is outside of the village’s DDB, the scheme would be contrary to this policy
13.2 However, currently the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing land. The Council’s own monitoring currently puts the supply at 4.94 years. In such a situation Paragraph 49 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises “Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if the local planning authority cannot demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites.” Policy SUS2 is a policy for the supply of housing, seeking as it does to restrict development outside of development boundaries. It is therefore “out-of-date” in light of the Authority’s current HLS and does not enjoy its full statutory weight as part of the development plan.
13.3 This brings into play the “tilted balance” in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. This advises that where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out-of-date, permission should be granted unless: “–– any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole; or –– specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.” In respect of the “specific policies”, a footnote in the NPPF advises that this includes policies relating to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
13.4 The implications of the lack of a 5-year supply for LPAs and the consequent weight to be attached to affected policies has led to a number of court cases since the introduction of the NPPF. The most relevant of these is the Supreme Court judgement in Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes & SSCLG and Richborough Estates v Cheshire East BC & SSCLG [2016]. This confirmed that for the purposes of applying the tilted balance in paragraph 14, the reference to “specific policies” in the paragraph above includes those relevant policies within an adopted Local Plan. Whilst these policies continue to retain their statutory status, the Supreme Court ruling determined that in
Page 48 considering the weight to be attached to these policies in the balancing exercise, the Local Planning Authority would need to have regard to whether continuing to apply its environmental and amenity policies with their full rigour may frustrate the objective of the Framework to ensure every effort “be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing, business and other development needs of an area, and respond positively to wider opportunities for growth.” So for example this would potentially affect the weight applied to Policy ENV1 relating to development in the AONB. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the Council needs to have due regard to whether applying full weight to AONB policy may be working against the Government’s stated aim to significantly increase housing supply and delivery.
13.5 It should be noted that the effect of paragraph 49 is not to render Policy SUS2 worthless. It still has weight in the decision-making process. Legal rulings have held that the weight to be attached to out-of-date policies will be a matter of planning judgement based on factors such as; · the extent to which the HLS fall short of providing a five-year supply; · the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it; · or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – i.e. does it seek to protect the site as open space or undeveloped to serve a particular planning purpose
13.6 Bearing in mind the site’s location directly adjacent to the village DDB, it would need to be regarded as a sustainable location for the growth of the village. This would be consistent with the Council’s conclusion in respect of App. No. WD/D/14/001541. This application was not refused on the basis that the development would be in an unsustainable location and this was not disputed by the appeal Inspector. The DDB for the village was carried forward into the current LP and the assessment that the site is a potentially sustainable location for further development remains unchanged.
13.7 The site lies within the AONB and this enjoys the highest levels of protection under Government guidance and Local Plan policy. The purpose of Policy ENV1 is to ensure that development which does take place does not harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the area. This was acknowledged by the appeal Inspector in allowing the earlier appeal, where they identified the Council’s previous landscape policies were potentially contrary to the NPPF’s position that some development can take place within the AONB. The current Policy ENV1 is now consistent with central Government guidance in the Framework. This does not mean that the scheme automatically has an acceptable impact on the AONB – this is explored in detail below. However, the Council could not resist the site being developed in principle simply because it lay within the AONB, particularly where the site already has permission for residential development. It must be able demonstrate harm is caused by the development to the special qualities or natural beauty of the AONB and moreover that this harm outweighs the benefits of the scheme after having due regard to the weight which should be attached to this policy in light of the tilted balance being brought into play.
Principle of Development - Conclusion
13.8 The Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing as required by the NPPF. Consequently its policies for the supply of housing are out-of-date.
Page 49 In the circumstances the Council would not be able to reject the site on a matter of principle that it lay outside of Mosterton’s defined development boundary. The Council need to consider whether the adverse impacts of the scheme significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or whether AONB policies for example indicate development should be resisted. In addition, there is a fall-back position for the applicant of the existing outline consent granted at appeal which can still be implemented.
13.9 There remains a pressing need for the Councils to bolster housing supply and look to additional sites to increase this supply. In the circumstances, preference should be given to the most sustainable locations to deliver this additional housing. The acceptability of the site for development has already been tested by the higher authority of the Planning Inspectorate and found to be acceptable. It therefore has the benefit of planning permission and is considered to be a reasonable opportunity to bolster housing supply and is moreover preferable to other sites where the acceptability of development is yet to be tested. Therefore the principle of the residential development of the site remains acceptable. The additional areas within the red line on this current application are not part of the land shown for residential development on the current scheme and therefore do not raise issues not previously considered by the Inspector on the earlier appeal.
Whether “major development” in the AONB
13.10 If a scheme is concluded to be a “major development” within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, this brings into play the guidance in paragraph 116 of the NPPF. This advises that “Planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest.” Due to the additional limitations on development this test imposes, it is necessary to be clear on whether the scheme is major development in assessing the merits of the scheme.
13.11 A basic point is that a major development in the AONB is not the same as the statutory definition of a major development in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2010. The courts have held that a scheme of 10 units or more is not automatically “major development” for the purposes of NPPF 116 but is a matter of planning judgement.
13.12 In making this assessment, regard is had to the assessment made on the previous application (14/1451) by the AONB team that the scheme was not major development and therefore paragraph 116 was not engaged. This was noted by the appeal Inspector and they did not apply the NPPF 116 test in allowing the scheme. The allowed scheme was in outline with all matters reserved and no dwelling numbers stated. The Inspector considered a possible layout but noted this to be for illustrative purposes only.
Whether “major development” in the AONB - Conclusion
13.13 The area shown for the development is the same as for the allowed scheme although it arguably now involves a more intensive development than that envisaged on the outline application. On that basis, it is considered consistent to continue to regard the scheme as not being major development for the purposes of paragraph 116.
Page 50 It is noted that the Dorset AONB consultation response draws a similar conclusion. This does not mean that the remaining guidance on protected landscapes in the NPPF and the adopted Local Plan do not continue to apply to the assessment of the scheme. They do with due regard to the weight which can be attached to these policies as set out in 13.4 above, but the proposal in this instance is not considered to attract the additional test in paragraph 116 of the NPPF.
Spatial Strategy
13.14 As noted in 13.1 above, where development is to take place in rural settlements with DDBs, the Local Plan advises this will take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement. At the 2011 census the population of the village was 604. There are a number of extant consents for residential development in or adjoining the village including; WD/D/14/002887: 10 units WD/D/16/000332: 7 units WD/D/15/000201: 3 units WD/D/15/001771: 5 units In addition the existing commitment at the site granted via the appeal decision is treated as 20 units bearing in mind the s106 agreement.
13.15 This totals 45 units. The consents provide for a range of properties. Working on an average occupation rate of 2.2 people per dwelling, this would increase the village population by approximately 99 or a sixth. If we substitute the current scheme for the extant outline approval, the number of new dwellings for the village goes up to 61, with the majority (59%) now being provided by this single site. Applying the same average occupancy rates, this would increase the size of the village by approximately 22%.
13.16 The question to be addressed in this application therefore is whether if the village grows by around a quarter over the short to medium-term (3-5 years), is this increase at an “appropriate scale” to the size of the settlement. It should be noted that when the Inspector allowed the previous appeal on the site, they were considering the position against the former West Dorset District Local Plan and a housing land supply of 3.1 years. In particular, as Policy SUS2 was only emerging at that time, the Inspector did not give this policy statutory weight and moreover did not direct themselves to whether the development of the site would be at an appropriate scale in their decision.
13.17 It should also be noted that notwithstanding the permissions approved and sought, the village would not grow by a quarter in one go. We can expect with a larger scheme such as this that it is likely the houses would be delivered over a number of years depending on market conditions or any triggers in the proposed legal agreement for delivering the affordable housing. Similarly, some of the other smaller approved schemes in 13.14 above may be delivered in one go or may not be implemented. This may mean that increases to the size of the village in any one year would be much smaller – a few percent per year - and would only reach the cumulative total after a number of years, if at all.
13.18 Members should also note that as a comparison, the Local Plan allocates a single site for Beaminster (Policy BEAM1) for around 120 units, a site which was carried over from the former West Dorset Local Plan and which the LP
Page 51 acknowledges has not come forward previously due to viability issues. At around 250 additional residents this would represent a growth of Beaminster of around 8% - excluding existing development commitments – which the Issues & Options (I&O) document for the Local Plan review notes have been very low in the town (on average 3 dwellings per annum). It is noted the current Issues & Options document seeks to address this by allocating considerable amounts of new development to meet Beaminster’s growth of around 850 units.
13.19 On a strict interpretation, a proportionately larger growth in the size of Mosterton would seem to run counter to Policy SUS2 where a greater level of growth is not planned for the nearest town which is to be a focus for development under the second tier of SUS2. However, such a position is considerably undermined because the Council is not meeting its housing targets and has persistently under-delivered against its housing targets – thereby requiring a greater buffer (of 20%) against its housing target.
13.20 As noted in 13.3 – 13.4, Policy SUS2 is also currently out-of-date and thereby does not attract its full statutory weight. Its provisions should nonetheless be applied to the proposals and balanced against the benefits of providing housing in a broadly sustainable location. SUS2 is a spatial strategy which seeks to guide development to the most appropriate locations in the interests of complementing Policy INT1 which promotes sustainable development and the strategic objectives of the Plan. The Local Plan at paragraph 3.3.27 notes that whilst there remains demand for housing in rural area “there are problems associated with providing development in locations that have few facilities and where people tend to commute to the towns.” Increasing such commuting is contrary to the strategic objective in the LP to provide greater opportunities to reduce car use hence the focus on development in towns.
13.21 The Local Plan Inspector was critical of the omission of sites from the Local Plan for Beaminster which they considered to have potential workable solutions to the objections raised. They were also critical of the lack of new allocations for other settlements in the 1st & 2nd tier of the settlement strategy as part of the plan. The LP was adopted with a marginal HLS of 5.1 years and there was always the risk that this may slip below five years if the historic under-provision persisted. This has proved to be the case. Current proposals in the Issues & Options document could see Beaminster’s population grow by potentially 50 – 60% in the long-term.
Spatial Strategy - Conclusion
13.22 Policy SUS2 requires development in rural areas to take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement. The Local Plan does not set a figure either in unit numbers, area or population growth of what is an “appropriate scale” for any of the villages with DDBs. Therefore it will be a matter of planning judgement each time on the facts of the case and any existing commitments. The I&O document seeks to take an ambitious approach towards housing growth for the settlements in the first and second tiers of SUS2 and the level of growth put forward as part of the options for Beaminster is not unique in the consultation.
Page 52 13.23 In the circumstances, for the Council to take a position of arguing that such a growth of Mosterton is excessive as a matter of principle would be difficult, particularly on a site which already has permission. Furthermore, if the scale of growth was excessive for the village, officers would expect this to be more obviously revealed in harm emerging from the assessment of the remaining material considerations. It is therefore necessary to identify if there is an overriding harm which results from growth of this scale which outweighs the presumption in favour of development.
Landscape impact and impact on the AONB
13.24 The site lies within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. This is afforded the highest level of landscape protection under the NPPF and Policy ENV1 of the adopted Local Plan. Paragraph 115 of NPPF advises that “great weight” should be given to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of an AONB. Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 require that ‘in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land’ in Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, relevant authorities ‘shall have regard’ to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of AONBs in making decisions that affect it.
13.25 When the previous Inspector considered the principle of the development of the site, the main issue was the impact of the scheme on the character and appearance of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. In their assessment the Inspector noted that whilst the landscape around Mosterton fell into the wider landscape character; “the landscape hereabouts is not devoid of built development.” And “whilst the village sits within this attractive landscape, it does not relate to, or contribute towards, the essential characteristics of the AONB which need to be respected.” (paragraph 8).
13.26 The Inspector noted that development of the site would extend the built-up area of the village into the AONB and it would be clearly seen in the wider area. They noted the loss of this part of the rural fringe would inevitably result in some degree of harm. However they stated; “taking account of the other development in this vicinity, it would not appear wholly incongruous or incompatible with the character of the landscape around this edge of the village. That is, although the proposed scheme would represent an expansion of the village, the village is already within the landscape of the AONB in this vicinity. The proposed scheme would not represent a significant or major change in the established relationship between built development and the countryside hereabouts.”
13.27 The assessment of the Inspector establishes the principle of the development of the site for residential. Their conclusion was that the development of the site would not have significant adverse impacts on the qualities of the landscape thereby complying with Policy ENV1 and the NPPF. There remains an extant permission capable of being implemented and the Council has no grounds to revisit the principle of developing this particular site. A number of the 3rd party responses refer to the appeal decision pre-dating the adoption of the Local Plan. However, as noted by the Inspector, the Council’s previous policies were potentially in conflict with the guidance in the NPPF. They considered the scheme against the Councils’ (then emerging) Policy ENV1 and concluded the development of the site would not breach the harm
Page 53 test in this policy.
13.28 Of course, the Inspector was only considering the principle of the outline application for the site. In this case we are considering a full application for 36 dwellings with all relevant information. Officers have consulted with your Landscape Officer. In this instance, in line with the Councils’ established protocol, they have also consulted with the Dorset AONB team. Their conclusion on the initial scheme for 40 units was that “although the principle of development has been established at this site, the significant increase in the impact of the proposal appears is considered to exceed the capacity of the site.”
13.29 Following the initial responses to the original scheme for 40 units, your landscape, urban design and planning officers have negotiated with the applicants to address the areas of concern over the landscape impact, layout and design issues. This led to a first revision down to 37 units and then a further amendment to 36 unit scheme before members.
13.30 The Dorset AONB team considered the revised 37-unit scheme and advised that;
“I consider that the revised design has made a number of changes that reduce the effect of the development on the wider landscape. In terms of the specific design amendments that were suggested, the revised design has responded as follows:
· It was suggested that “the design/layout of the site and the strategy for landscaping could be better integrated”. The design has now incorporated a connection between the central open space within the housing and the greenspace to the north. Greater areas of planting have been incorporates to improve the visual connectivity and coherence of these areas.
· With regard to the western boundary, it was suggested that it would be “much more appropriate to utilise a straight native hedgerow, ideally with some hedgerow trees”. Although the revised design has not strictly incorporated the suggestion, there has been a significant improvement to the extent of planting and the integration of the proposed parking spaces with the landscaping scheme.
13.31 · It was noted that “the arrangement and orientation of buildings across the site is quite complex in comparison with nearby housing at Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross. There are very limited views through the development and the arrangement appears likely to exacerbate its overall perceived scale and mass.” There has been a degree of improvement in the plans, as a result in a small reduction in the number of units and a change to the layout in a number of areas. The outcome of these amendments have been varied. At the southern gateway to the site the revised alignment has a simpler linear arrangement than previously proposed, which I regard as an improvement. Elsewhere, the arrangement of plots 34-37 appears to have tightened, in an amendment that will increase the massing of these single-storey dwellings.
Page 54 The central area of the development has been adjusted, although not to the degree that it’s overall mass has been substantially been reduced, in my opinion. However, the increase in planting to the north of this area will serve to eventually reduce the visual impact of this portion of the site, particularly when viewed from the bridleway to the north.
· It was suggested that “the approach to varying roofing materials may increase the visual impact of the development” and as a result the proposal adopts a suitable uniform roofing material.
The most significant matter that I have not mentioned above, is the overall density of the proposal. Clearly the slight reduction in dwellings has decreased density. Nonetheless, this is a relatively dense housing development in a peripheral rural location, which predominantly relies of the maturation of planting to achieve mitigation of its visual impact. Given the wider built context and the presence of adolescent trees within the small community woodland to the north, I am of the opinion that although the effects of the revised design are adverse, they are borderline tolerable.”
Landscape impact and impact on the AONB – Conclusion
13.32 Whilst the Dorset AONB team remained cautious in their response to the 37-unit scheme, your urban design and planning officers remained unsatisfied that the layout and designs were of sufficient quality to comply with the relevant design criteria in policies ENV10, 11 & 12. So further negotiations took place resulting in the current 36-unit proposals before members. This further reduced numbers and also noticeably reduced the extent of development in the northern corner of the site. This allows for a further enlargement of the proposed community woodland extension along the northern boundary with additional planting indicated.
13.33 It is considered that this results in the development being read more closely with the existing developed edge of the southern part of the village in wider views. The development has softer edges to the north and western sides and a high proportion of single storey properties, limiting wide-ranging impacts. Overall the amended scheme results in a less incongruous incursion into the open countryside. There are still impacts associated with the scheme on landscape character but these are not considered to result in harm to the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the AONB which is the test in Policy ENV1. The impacts from developing the site will be weighed in the planning balance.
Design and Layout
13.34 As noted above, the scheme has been amended twice in an effort to address officer’s concerns over the layout and design aspects and as part of a wider concern over the impacts of the scheme on the AONB. These concerns have dovetailed in some respects although as pointed out above, whilst the scheme has reached the point where the AONB team cautiously removed their objection, officers were still not satisfied the scheme met the high quality layout and design sought under policies ENV10, 11 & 12 and the Council’s design guidance.
Page 55 13.35 The site has a relatively narrow frontage to the lane but there is sufficient room to accommodate the site access and a 2-storey cottage fronting onto the lane creating interest at this point but also announcing when approaching from the west that you would be arriving at the village. The short terraces of Plots 2-4, 5-8 & 9-13 are considered to create a strong sense of enclosure on entering the development and also successfully turn the corner of the road leading into the site. It is felt that these aspects of the scheme are particularly well realised with simple terraced designs in red brick and recon stone with natural slate roofs. The latest revisions have also added some chimneys.
13.36 Where officers were less satisfied was with the remainder of the scheme. Whilst the properties fronting onto the open space was a welcome part of the layout, introducing a green wedge into the scheme and softening the transition to the open countryside beyond, it was felt this had led to some unacceptable compromises with the remainder of the layout. Amendments were sought to Units 7 & 28 to ensure these were ‘dual-fronted’ and addressed not only the proposed open space but the road as well. Frontage parking which was felt to be dominating the approach to this part of the site was also omitted.
13.37 The provision of the row of bungalows raises some issues because there are difficulties in creating a strong sense of enclosure to the street scene with the proposed design and they have a tendency to appear overly suburban in this village fringe location. Whilst accepting this part of the layout as a way to deliver the range of housing sought by the applicant, it was considered that the remainder of the scheme to the north failed to create a suitably coherent urban form for the proposed dwellings. This led to some obvious compromises with the remaining houses in their amenity and relationship with each other. The revisions sought by officers have removed an awkward front-to-back relationship with properties fronting onto the open space, creating a much better defined street fronted by development on both sides. The area behind is given over to a parking court with carports and has allowed for an increase in the communal woodland extension, further softening the edges of the development.
13.38 With regards to the remainder of the house designs, this continues the same palette of red brick and recon stone with natural slate roofs. The bungalows also incorporate timber cladding. Overall designs are of modest properties in keeping with the traditional cottages within the village. In addition, the designs incorporate a number of detailed features in their decorative porches, exposed purlins, timber lintels and recon stone cills which are considered to lift the designs, highlighting their quality over and above standardised house designs.
Design & Layout – Conclusion
13.39 The layout has evolved over the revisions to the scheme to deliver a development which addresses the landscape and urban design officer’s concerns. The approach is different to the post-war layout of Windsor Close/Mosterton Cross but instead draws more on the closer-knit character of the village’s historic core and the use of recon stone is reflective of this. This is considered to be an appropriate approach which allows the scheme to make effective and efficient use of this site on the village fringe.
Page 56 13.40 Policy ENV10 requires that all development proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance and enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness and be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings. Policy ENV11 seeks to deliver streets and spaces that are well defined, safe and pleasant to use, with active and overlooked public areas and secure private areas. Policy ENV12 requires the general design to be in harmony with the adjoining buildings and the area as a whole and buildings to relate positively to adjoining buildings and other features that contribute to the character of the area.
13.41 Overall the design and layout of the scheme is considered to strike a suitable balance of the criteria in policies ENV10 – 12 whilst complying with Policy ENV15 to make appropriate use of the site and also HOUS3 in providing a mix of property sizes and scales within the site.
Impact on Neighbours’ Living Conditions
13.42 The properties most immediately affected by the proposals are the semi-detached dwellings to the south in Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross. These share some similarities in layout with the properties fronting onto a communal green or parking area. All properties stand in relatively generous plots with a minimum of 14m from the rear of these neighbours to the southern site boundary and 10m from 1 Windsor Close to the west boundary.
13.43 Across the scheme the proposed dwellings back onto the rear gardens of the neighbouring properties, thereby establishing an ordinary back-to-back residential relationship between the existing and proposed properties. The exception to this are the two small parking courts serving plots 3 – 8. These adjoin the rear gardens of 2 & 3 Windsor Close. There will be some disturbance from vehicles using these areas and the layout proposes a 1.8m close-board fence along the boundaries with Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross which will serve to limit some of this noise impact.
13.44 In terms of building-to-building distances, at the closest point there is 19.5m from the side of Plot 1 to the corner of 1 Windsor Close. Due to the orientation of this neighbour, the views towards the development are angled and the window-to-window distances exceed 20m. The Councils’ adopted Design Guidance advises that “20 metres between facing buildings will normally give good privacy between the rear of buildings. Closer distances may be possible where homes are not directly facing each other, or suitable screening can be achieved.” (para.7.5.2).
13.45 Along the southern boundary of the site, Plots 18 – 25 are single storey properties. There is around 25m from the rear of these proposed properties to the nearest existing dwelling. Due to the lack of 1st floor accommodation in these proposed units, they are not considered to adversely impact on privacy levels enjoyed by the neighbouring dwellings. Plots 26-27 in the far NE corner are a 2-storey semi-detached pair. There is 25m again from the rear of these proposed dwellings to No’s 4 & 5 Mosterton Cross, thereby complying with the guidance in the Council’s Design SPD.
Page 57 Impact on Neighbours’ Living Conditions - Conclusions
13.46 Policy ENV16 seeks to ensure development is designed to minimize its impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of both existing residents and future residents. Further guidance on how to achieve this is within the adopted Design SPD. In terms of assessing the acceptability of the scheme against ENV16, the test in the policy is whether the proposals have a significant adverse effect on the living conditions of existing and proposed occupiers. This allows for the Council to manage changes in neighbouring living conditions without putting all development in jeopardy.
13.47 Outside of previously developed land, the most sustainable locations for the expansion of existing settlements will often involve developing land immediately beyond a settlement’s existing fringes. As the edges of settlements will often be residential, it will not be unusual to see areas developed which adjoin properties who have previously enjoyed views over the immediate countryside. If the test was to ensure that development had no impact on such views, this would have the effect of stymieing development or alternatively pushing to more remote and unsustainable locations, thereby conflicting with other policies and objectives of the LP.
13.48 Having considered the range of impacts associated with the proposed layout and designs, it is considered that there will be a change in the outlook from the neighbouring properties who will be able to see the proposed properties beyond their rear boundaries. However, due to the siting of the new dwellings and their design, the proposals are not considered to result in an overbearing impact. Nor are they considered to cause a significant loss of outlook to Windsor Close/Mosterton Cross as these properties will continue to enjoy longer-range views out towards the open countryside beyond and through the proposed development. The layout meets the privacy standards in the Councils’ SPD. In terms of any additional noise and disturbance, the domestic use proposed and associated traffic movements would result in common residential relationship seen across the village. Overall the scheme is not considered to breach the significant adverse impact test in ENV16.
Highways
13.49 Being located at the fringe of the village, the access to the site has the character of a rural lane, enclosed by established hedges and without footways. Development of the site would likely lead to increased pedestrian movements along the lane towards Mosterton Cross, particularly to reach the village school for example. The scheme provides footways within the development and proposes to provide a new footway from the site along the lane to the Windsor Close access and beyond. In addition, a new priority section of highway will be created outside the application site towards the village. The current 30mph limit will also be extended westwards beyond the site.
13.50 The proposals seeks to facilitate safer pedestrian movement from the site towards the village and its amenities. This would also provide a benefit for existing occupants seeking to access the public footpaths towards the community woodland. The provision of the visibility splay from the site access and the proposed highway works will have moderate urbanising effect over a short length of the lane before it resumes its rural character beyond
Page 58 the site and Such highway priority sections are not uncommon in West Dorset’s villages.
13.51 Within the site, each dwelling is provided with 2 parking spaces in a combination of on-plot, parking courts and car ports. There are also additional visitor’s spaces shown on the submitted layout. The proposed layout complies with the guidance in the adopted Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Residential Car Parking Study and thereby complies with Policy COM9. There is a balance to be made in terms of accommodating adequate parking under the adopted guidelines and delivering a layout meeting the urban design aspirations of the Councils’ policies and SPD and the amendments to the scheme have been partly concerned with delivering this appropriate combination.
Highways – Conclusion
13.52 The proposals have been considered by the Highways Authority and their conclusion is that the scheme is acceptable subject to the applicant entering into an agreement to deliver the proposed highway works and a condition to secure the submitted layout. The delivery of these works would provide appropriate mitigation for the highway impacts of the development. Through this the scheme would meet the tests in COM7 to ensure that development would not have a severe detrimental effect on road safety. In addition, the applicant is considered to have demonstrated that the volume of traffic likely to be generated by the proposed 36 units can be accommodated on the local highway network without exacerbating community severance and that the residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network are not likely to be severe. Accordingly the scheme complies with Policy COM7.
Drainage & Foul Water
13.53 The Parish Council and a number of third parties have raised the issue of foul water drainage from the site. These comments state that the existing network is at capacity leading currently to problems with overflowing and therefore there is insufficient capacity to accommodate further dwellings on the system. The Councils’ position on utilities and service infrastructure is set out in Policy COM10; “Development will not be permitted where the problems associated with the lack of necessary utilities service infrastructure, including energy supplies, drainage, sewerage, sewage treatment and water supply, cannot be overcome.”
13.54 If there is an issue with foul water capacity, this does not mean that no development can occur. The onus instead falls on the applicant to demonstrate there is a technical solution to address the issue. South West Water has responsibility for this aspect and their consultee response is set out in 5.1 above. SWW acknowledge the issue of the system’s current capacity and advise they have undertaken an evaluation which sets out the improvements necessary to accommodate the increased load placed on the network by the development. They recommend a condition to secure these improvements which is included in 15.1 below.
Page 59 Drainage & Foul Water – Conclusion
13.55 The NPPF advises that Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Therefore if there is a technical issue which can be resolved or mitigated through additional works and moreover that the delivery of this can be secured via a planning condition, then the Council should look positively on this as a way of facilitating sustainable development.
13.56 As the statutory body with responsibility for foul drainage network in the area, SWW are best placed to advise the LPA on the impacts of the development on this network. As their view is that the scheme can proceed subject to a condition requiring delivery of the necessary network improvements, members can be satisfied that the statutory body has suitably investigated this matter and a technical solution is available. It is recommended that SWW’s suggested condition be included in any approval.
Affordable Housing
13.57 Policy HOUS1 of the Local Plan requires all new development to make contributions towards affordable housing (AH). The policy seeks that in most cases provision will be made on site. This would apply to this scheme. The level of contribution would be 35% of the proposed units, in this case totalling 12.6 units across the scheme. Policy HOUS1 seeks these to be provided in a tenure split of 70% social / affordable rent and a maximum of 30% intermediate affordable housing.
13.58 The substantial unmet need for affordable housing in the district set out in your Housing Enabling Team’s response to the application are noted. The provision of 12 units of affordable housing as part of the scheme would be a considerable benefit in addressing this ongoing need and is given significant weight in the balancing exercise set out in part 14 below. The applicant is a Registered Social Landlord (RSL) and the submitted plans indicate an intention to substantially overprovide affordable housing with only 9 of the 36 properties being for sale on the open market. The remainder being for rent or shared ownership.
13.59 This would be a considerable additional benefit of the scheme. However, members should note that the Council can only secure an affordable housing contribution in line with its policy – i.e. 35%. Any provision over and above this would be at the applicants’ discretion and therefore only limited weight is attached to any AH provision over and above the 35% in the balancing exercise notwithstanding the considerable further benefit which could potentially accrue.
Affordable Housing – Conclusion
13.60 The applicants have not sought to contest the viability of the scheme to deliver a policy-compliant on-site affordable housing contribution and indeed are potentially looking to over-deliver affordable housing. The consultation exercise has not raised any significant issues indicating there may be extraordinary costs over and above the foul water capacity in developing the site which may impact on the scheme’s ability to deliver 35% affordable
Page 60 housing on site in line with Policy HOUS1. Therefore subject to completion of a s106 agreement to secure the AH provision as set out in the recommendation in 15.1 below, the development complies with Policy HOUS1.
Infrastructure Contributions
13.61 The Council has adopted a CIL-charging regime (see below) and in practice the majority of infrastructure contributions to mitigate the impact of new development will be secured via CIL. The adopted Regulation 123 list for West Dorset apportions the largest single proportion of the CIL contributions towards Education & Training Facilities. The next two largest apportionments are towards Transport and Culture & Leisure Facilities. Contributions are also made towards Flood Mitigation, Emergency Services, Green Infrastructure & Recreation, Healthcare, Poole Harbour Nutrient Management, Public Realm, Utilities and Waste Management.
13.62 Therefore, whilst the ability of the village’s infrastructure to accommodate the increased population following from the development is raised in a number of third party responses, contributions to mitigate this impact will be made as part of the CIL contributions. In particular, a sizable proportion of the CIL monies will go towards education provision and it is noted that DCC’s Obligations Manager is satisfied with this.
13.63 In order to secure any further developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of development, these must be in addition to matters not addressed through CIL in order to avoid double-charging the applicant. Under the Community infrastructure Levy regulations, any developer contributions proposed to be secured via a s106 agreement must meet the following tests and be; a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; b) directly related to the development; and c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
13.64 The scheme includes proposals for off-site highway works to improve pedestrian linkages from the site to the rest of the village and highway safety outside the site. These are considered essential to facilitate pedestrian links from the development to the remainder of Mosterton to integrate the scheme without which the proposals would be unacceptable. These also deliver a benefit for existing residents in providing safer routes across the village.
13.65 The scheme provides for an extension to the community woodland as part of the layout but also includes communal open space for residents. This will also form part of the route from the village via the diverted public footpath to the community woodland. The open space is an integral aspect of the scheme, necessary to mitigate the impact of the development on the AONB. In addition it is considered necessary to ensure the development meets the requirements of Table 6.1 of the Local Plan which aims to provide access to a natural greenspace of at least 2ha in size within 1km of the area for large villages of 500+ population. Whilst the scheme can provide this as part of the layout, in order to secure the long-term benefit of this open space provision, it needs to be secured and managed
Page 61 13.66 The justification for the proposed affordable housing contribution is set out in paragraphs 13.57 – 13.59 above.
Infrastructure Contributions – Conclusions
13.67 The possible need for additional developer contributions over and above those secured under CIL has been considered against the criteria in the adopted Local Plan. The proposed contributions set out in the recommendation in 15.1 below are site-specific issues raised by the nature of the development. The level of contribution sought relates to standards and policies in the adopted Local Plan to secure acceptable open space provision, safety for pedestrians and affordable housing to meet a substantial unmet need. Consequently, the proposed contributions are considered to be justified against the criteria in the CIL regulations.
Community infrastructure Levy
13.68 Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does have local finance considerations. The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per square metre CIL rate.
The development proposal is CIL liable. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development.
Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations (Reg 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted.
14. Summary Balancing Exercise 14.1 Policy INT1 of the adopted Local Plan reinforces the presumption in favour of sustainable development within paragraph 14 of the NPPF. However, it also includes an additional requirement that where policies are out-of-date, regard will be had to the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan.
14.2 The NPPF confirms that sustainable development has three dimensions; economic, social and environmental which it states are mutually dependent. In terms of the economic benefits of the scheme there would be short-term benefits during the construction stage. The scheme does not provide any long-term employment but would increase the numbers of the local population to support local services. This has both an economic and social benefit as this can potentially sustain local facilities as a wider benefit to the village as a whole.
Page 62 14.3 The growth in the village’s population has the potential to benefit its vitality and viability. In the provision of affordable housing in a sustainable location, there is a substantial social benefit in helping to meet a considerable unmet need in the area. The possibility that the applicant may overprovide affordable housing is also noted. Irrespective of that, the scheme delivers a range of housing types and sizes and delivers a number of small single storey houses. The scheme thus caters to a range of needs and would have the potential to deliver a variety of occupants. CIL contributions will mitigate the impact of the development on local infrastructure.
14.4 On the environmental factors, the amendments have sought to address concerns expressed over the landscape impact. The scheme as presented incorporates open space to soften the transition between the new built development and the open countryside beyond. Built development relates well to the existing village fringe and is not considered to result in an incongruous built incursion into the AONB. Similarly, the changes sought to the scheme now deliver a scheme with a sympathetic variety of designs drawing on the simple cottage character of traditional dwellings within the centre rather than being driven specifically by the character of the immediately adjacent properties. This is considered to be a legitimate approach and delivers a variety of well-designed properties in suitable materials complying with the Council’s environmental policies.
14.5 The scheme has taken account of the relationship with neighbouring properties and will comply with Policy ENV16. The scheme incorporates highway works to facilitate pedestrian access from the site to the remainder of the village. The Highways Authority are satisfied that the scheme is compatible with highway safety and there is capacity within the network to accommodate the development. The Council is advised there are workable solutions to the surface and foul water issues.
14.6 Overall the assessment of the three dimensions of sustainable development is that the impacts are either positive or neutral. However there remains a conflict with Policy SUS2 as the site lies outside of the DDB for Mosterton, but currently this policy is out-of-date due to the Council’s Housing Land Supply. So in assessing the scheme against Policy INT1, the Council would need to assess the proposals against the strategic objectives (SO) in the plan.
14.7 Not all of the SO are directly applicable to the scheme before members. Of the relevant objectives these include meeting local housing needs for all as far as is possible and the scheme would be compliant with this in its provision of affordable housing and its housing mix. It would contribute towards supporting sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities by developing in a sustainable location. It will comply with protecting and enhancing the outstanding natural and built environment, including its landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity, and the local distinctiveness of places within the area. The plan notes this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change such as the AONB.
14.8 With regards to reducing vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, both by minimising the potential impacts and by adapting to those that are inevitable, the site lies outside of the area of highest flood risk. In addition, the drainage proposals result in a betterment to surface water drainage
Page 63 run-off from the site which ultimately drains to the River Axe. The scheme is also considered to achieve high quality and sustainability in design, reflecting the local character and distinctiveness of the area.
14.9 The final applicable objective is to provide greater opportunities to reduce car use; improve safety; ensure convenient and appropriate public transport services; and seek greater network efficiency for pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians. In this respect the scheme is only partly successful. By developing in a sustainable location, occupiers will have the opportunity to access local facilities by other means than driving and the proposals seek to facilitate pedestrian access to the village. However, it is accepted that the development would likely increase out-commuting as it is unlikely that employment needs would be met in Mosterton and it is unlikely that public transport would provide a suitable alternative for many residents to reach work.
14.10 This would have to be a negative aspect of the scheme. Officers have given due consideration to this, bearing in mind the number of units involved and therefore the likely extent of additional commuting which may result. In this particular instance, this negative aspect is considered to be noticeably outweighed by the positives of the scheme and therefore the scheme represents sustainable development and complies with Policy INT1. ON this basis the scheme is recommended for approval.
15. Recommendation 15.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure; · 35% of the units as affordable housing · Provision and maintenance of the proposed open space · Applicant to fully fund a Traffic Management / calming scheme for the Broadwindsor Road (including the Traffic Regulation Order for the repositioning of the speed limit) and before the occupation of the first dwelling on the site and then APPROVE subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 15.1 below.
i. Plans list ii. Implement within 3 years
HIGHWAYS
iii. Before the development is occupied the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Number 3679/PL/02 Rev L must be constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
REASON: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site.
Page 64 FOUL DRAINAGE iv. No development above damp proof course shall take place until either the Owner has submitted an application to the relevant Sewerage Undertaker for a public foul sewer requisition under s98 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (which shall include the provision of public sewerage improvement works identified as necessary) or the Local Planning Authority has given written approval to the proposed foul water drainage details.
No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied or brought into use and there shall be no discharge to the public foul sewerage network, unless and until the approved scheme of improvement works identified by the Sewerage Undertaker as necessary to accommodate the discharge of foul sewage from the Development have been implemented. The foul water facilities shall thereafter be retained and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
SURFACE WATER v. No construction works on any dwelling hereby approved shall take place until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, and including clarification of how surface water is to be attenuated and discharged, has been submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted details before the development is completed.
REASON: To prevent the increased risk of flooding, to improve and protect water quality, improve habitat and amenity. vi. No construction works on any dwelling hereby approved shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
REASON To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system, and to prevent the increased risk of flooding.
Page 65 CONTAMINATED LAND vii. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development that was not previously identified it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority. An investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken and where remediation is necessary a remediation scheme shall be prepared, which is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority. Should any contamination be found requiring remediation, a remediation scheme should be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority.
The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out in its entirety. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be produced to the Local Planning Authority within three months.
REASON: In the interests of ensuring there is no unacceptable risk to occupiers of the development in accordance with Policy ENV9 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
MATERIALS viii. Prior to the commencement of development on any dwelling hereby approved, full details and/or samples of all external facing materials for that dwelling shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, the development shall proceed in strict accordance with the materials as have been agreed.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
FINISHED FLOOR LEVELS ix. No development shall commence on any dwelling hereby approved until details of the finished floor level(s) of the building(s) hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such levels shall be relative to an ordnance datum or such other fixed feature as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the area in accordance with Policy ENV12 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
Page 66 BOUNDARY TREATMENTS x. The boundary treatments to the southern boundary adjoining the neighbouring properties in Windsor Close and Mosterton Cross as set out on the approved plan DRWG. NO. 3679/PL/02 REV. L shall be installed in their entirety prior to the first occupation of the scheme. The boundary treatments to serve each individual dwelling shall be completed in full prior to the first occupation of the dwelling to which they relate. The boundary treatments shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: In the interests of the privacy of the approved and neighbouring dwellings in accordance with the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) Policy ENV16 and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
LANDSCAPING xi. All planting, seeding or turfing comprised in the landscaping details set out on the approved plans Drwg. No. 3679/200 REV F & 3679/201 REV F shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Planting Schedule 3679/290 REV F during the first planting and seeding seasons following the occupation of any of the buildings or the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner.
Any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The landscaping shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the location in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
BIODIVERSITY xii. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan from David Leach dated 16 January 2015 and this shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In order to protect the landscape qualities of the area and to safeguard and enhance the ecological value of the site in accordance with Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
Page 67 HARD SURFACING xiii. No works on any dwelling hereby approved shall take place prior to the submission of details of the hard surfacing treatments for the parking courts, parking spaces and pathways to serve the development have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details before the areas are first brought into use and shall thereafter be retained.
REASON: In the interests of the character and appearance of the location in accordance with Policy ENV10 of the West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the NPPF (2012).
INFORMATIVE NOTE:- Community Infrastructure Levy This development constitutes Community Infrastructure Levy 'CIL' liable development. CIL is a mandatory financial charge on development and you will be notified of the amount of CIL being charged on this development in a CIL Liability Notice. To avoid additional financial penalties it is important that you notify us of the date you plan to commence development before any work takes place and follow the correct CIL payment procedure.
INFORMATIVE NOTE:- The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
INFORMATIVE NOTE:- All works offering an obstruction to flow within a channel with the status of Ordinary Watercourse are likely to require prior Land Drainage Consent (LDC) from Dorset County Council, as relevant Lead Local Flood Authority, in accordance with s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991. The requirement for such LDC is independent of planning permission.
Page 68 Agenda Item 7
Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/17/000035
Application Number: WD/D/17/000035 Outline
Registration Date: 11 May, 2017
Application Site: LAND TO EAST OF WYND CLOSE, WEST STAFFORD
Proposal: Outline application for erection of 10no. dwellings with associated parking, access & landscaping
Applicant: West Stafford LVA LLP
Ward Members: Cllr R Freeman
Case Officer: David Hodges
1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Refuse for the reasons in 15.1 below.
2. Description of development 2.1 Site is currently an agricultural field extending to 0.39ha on the eastern edge of West Stafford. The site lies due east of Wynd Close and currently consists of an open field which slopes gently down from south to north. The northern boundary of the site adjoins a small burial ground enclosed by hedges, beyond which is the lane leading east from the village towards Talbothays.
2.2 To the west is Wynd Close, a short row of semi-detached properties which front towards the site, which ends as a cul-de-sac by the mainline railway and continues under the railway as a public footpath. There is also an existing public footpath running SW-NE which forms the southern boundary of the site. The site is generally open but is enclosed on its western side by a well-defined hedge and bank adjacent to Wynd Close.
2.3 Proposal is to develop the site for 10 dwellings. This would be a density of approximately 25 dwellings per hectare. The application is in outline with approval for the access point sought at this time. All other matters of layout, scale, appearance and landscaping reserved for future approval. The application is accompanied by a plan showing the planned access point accompanied by an indicative layout of the proposed dwellings. On this plan the dwellings are shown as a mix of semi-detached and detached dwellings served via an access from Wynd Close with the public footpath retained along the southern boundary.
Page 69 2.4 West Stafford does not have a Defined Development Boundary. It is however one of the villages with +200 population listed on p.76 of the Local Plan. Therefore the site lies in open countryside for the purposes of the Local Plan and Policy SUS2 in particular. The site lies within 5km of protected heathlands and a groundwater source protection zone. The site lies within a mineral safeguarding area and a contaminated land site buffer. The wider area is within the Crossways Gravel Plateau Landscape Character Area.
2.5 The boundary of the West Stafford Conservation Area runs alongside part of the western and northern boundary of the site before running alongside the lane to Talbothays to enclose the listed gateposts and former entrance to West Stafford Manor, north-east of the site. The grade II listed village hall is approximately 65m from the site and 1 – 2 Chestnut Cottages at the junction of Wynd Close are identified as important local buildings in the adopted West Stafford Conservation Area Appraisal. In addition, from the site the listed Talbothays Lodge – designed by Thomas Hardy – is visible across the intervening fields.
2.6 The application has been amended during its consideration to move the proposed access point in response to concerns over the impact of the originally proposed access position. A reconsultation exercise on these amended plans has been carried out.
2.7 The application was deferred from the 18 January meeting of the Planning Committee for a site visit to be carried out.
3. Main planning issues · Development outside of Defined Development Boundaries · Housing Land Supply · Affordable housing provision · Housing need · Impact on character & appearance of the area · Impact on neighbour’s living conditions · Highway safety · Heritage assets
4. Statutory Consultations
Parish Council 4.1 Objection:- A survey was carried out within the village of West Stafford to assess the merits of the proposed application. There was a very good response to the survey with 69% rejection and 17% in agreement The remainder being undecided.
The main considerations for rejection were :-
1. The proposed development falls outside the development boundary for the village – ref WDDC Local Plan on the 6th November 1998, OS copyright NC/01/537. 2. The proposed development area is designated as “Agricultural Land” and approval would set a dangerous precedent.
Page 70 3. The Southern Water Pumping Station was designed prior to the development of Floyers Field and the Paddock developments a total of 20 houses. It is working at its total capacity. 4. Access to Wynd Close is on a very dangerous bend and with no pavements in the village would be extremely hazardous for children walking to the School Bus Stop. 5. The development would in no way enhance the village and would have an adverse effect on the quite adjacent burial ground. 6. West Stafford does not have the infrastructure to support this development, i.e.: No Shops, No Bus Service, Doctors Surgery and narrow winding roads. 7. The Ecological survey was carried out in late October 2016, when all wild life had hibernated making it completely inappropriate.
As a result of this survey Knightsford Parish Council would strongly oppose the application.
It is regretted that the issues raised by individuals and the KPC comments to the earlier application have not been addressed in this Second Application. These should be taken into consideration when an assessment is made.
Highway Authority 4.2 No objection subject to condition re: details of the estate road.
5. Other consultations 5.1 Natural England: Issues concerning designated heathland sites: The application site lies in the vicinity (within 5 km and beyond 400m) of heathlands that are notified as SSSIs for the special interest of their heathland habitats and associated plant and animal species. The SSSIs are part of the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland bird species and are also part of a Ramsar site on account of rare or vulnerable heathland wetlands and associated rare wetland species. They are additionally part of the Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC) on account of rare or vulnerable heathland and associated habitats and some individual species.
5.2 Where your authority is of the view that the proposal is liable to pay CIL or to make the appropriate mitigation contribution, Natural England objects to this proposal unless the applicant makes the necessary contribution required by your authority as well as the necessary SAMM contribution through a legal agreement. The contribution is necessary to deliver the agreed avoidance/mitigation set out in the SPD in accordance with the levels and procedures for this contribution.
5.3 Issues concerning other designated sites: The application site also lies close to River Frome SSSI. Based on the information provided, Natural England has no objection to the proposed development in relation to this designated site subject to the proposal being carried out in strict accordance with the details of the application. The reason for this view is that we consider that the proposal will not have a significant effect on the interest features of this designated site.
Page 71 5.4 Issues concerning protected species: Natural England acknowledge the submission of a Biodiversity Mitigation Plan and Ecological Assessment as part of this application, though it is noted that these are based on the previous submission for the site. As such Natural England advise that your authority require that a revised Biodiversity Mitigation Plan is submitted and that any permission is subject to a condition to implement said Biodiversity Mitigation Plan, once it has been approved by the Dorset County Council’s Natural Environment Team (NET). Provided the Biodiversity Mitigation Plan has been approved by the DCC NET Team and is made a condition of any permission then no further consultation with Natural England is required.
5.5 Dorset County Council Natural Environment Team: A Certificate of Approval for a revised Biodiversity Mitigation Plan dated 23rd July 2017 has been issued today for the above planning application.
5.6 Dorset County Council Rights of Way: Please note that the proposed works directly affect Footpath 1, West Stafford as shown on the enclosed plans, and I strongly advise that the conditions below are included in any planning approval: • The footpath must be diverted by legal order and that order must be confirmed before any works obstructing the path are commenced. If the path is obstructed in the absence of such a legal order this department will carry out enforcement action as deemed appropriate. • The Definitive line of the footpath not the walked line will be obstructed by the proposed building works.
5.7 Dorset County Council Minerals Planning Authority: The Design & Access Statement accompanying the application is comprehensive in its assessment of planning policies within the District Local Plan, and indeed mentions the ‘gravel plateau’ on this site (para 4.3). However, the D&A statement makes no reference to the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Strategy 2014 (the Minerals Strategy 2014) which forms part of the Adopted Development Plan for Dorset Local Authorities (para 6.5). The proposed development site lies largely within the Mineral Safeguarding Area as designated in the Minerals Strategy 2014. Policies SG1 and SG2 of the Minerals Strategy 2014 are applicable in this instance. No information is provided on whether there is any mineral underlying the site, or if there is what the quality of the mineral is. This information can be obtained from the site investigation work done to prepare for building works.
5.8 Given the size of the site, the Mineral Planning Authority accept that it would be unreasonable to require prior extraction, with removal of mineral from the site, prior to commencement of built development. However the Mineral Planning Authority is under a statutory duty to avoid unnecessary sterilisation of minerals and it is considered that there are other options for using/re-using some of the mineral that may underlie the site – for example, mineral removed as part of site preparation can potentially be re-used on-site as part of the overall development.
5.9 If the Local Planning Authority is minded to approve this Outline application, it is therefore requested that a condition is imposed on the planning consent which requires all the following : 1. that the applicants agree in writing to, as far as possible, re-use on-site mineral excavated from the site;
Page 72 2. that they submit a report/statement as soon as possible setting out how much material they propose to excavate as part of site preparation/development and where/how it could be re-used on site; 3. that when the groundworks are complete/substantially complete, they submit another report setting out the quantity of material which was actually re-used. The Mineral Planning Authority consider that this approach to re-using excavated mineral will achieve the objectives of reducing climate change impacts and minimising mineral extraction impacts in other areas without placing undue constraints on the development of the site.
5.10 Historic England: On the basis of the information available to date, we do not wish to offer any comments. We suggest that you seek the views of your specialist conservation and archaeological advisers, as relevant.
5.11 Dorset County Council Lead Local Flood Authority: Our previous consultation response provides some assessment of prevailing flood risk to the applicant’s site and surrounding areas. We have nothing further to add in this regard and will therefore not comment further with respect to this. We suggest, however, that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) review our earlier replies as a reminder of the setting of the site from a flood risk perspective as well how proposals for the site have evolved over time.
5.12 Regardless of prevailing risk, any development has the potential to exacerbate or create flood risk, if runoff is not appropriately considered and managed as evidenced by a substantiated SW strategy. Ordinarily therefore, and in keeping with the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), all major development proposals must take due consideration of SW water management and should offer a drainage strategy that does not create or exacerbate off site worsening and should mitigate flood risk to the site.
5.13 · The applicant has undertaken Ground Investigations (GI) at five points within the site. This report suggests that infiltration is feasible at this site, hence the DS referenced above proposes using infiltration to drain the site for all rainfall events up to a 1 in 100 year storm with a 40% allowance for climate change. Such an approach is in line with best practice and the SuDS hierarchy. · The results of preliminary calculations for the sizing of a proposed infiltration basin have been provided within table 1 and paragraphs 23 & 24 of the DS. Space has been reserved on the layout according to the drawing made available to us and referenced above. Clearly, detailed designs for this key feature will be required at Discharge of Condition(s) (DoC) stage. · We are also satisfied with the applicant’s intentions concerning maintenance, although please note we (DCC’s FRM) team are aware that water companies are currently looking into adoption of infiltration systems. Should Wessex Water (WW) adopt this approach prior to the applicant discharging the conditions below, then we would expect to see the proposed infrastructure offered for adoption, before creation of a private management company.
Page 73 Given the commitments made and evidence provided, we have no objection to the application subject to conditions and informatives being included on any permission granted.
5.14 Conservation Officer: Significance: The application site is located in current farmland, on the south-eastern side of West Stafford village and on the peripheral edge of the Conservation Area. The site is close to the historic core of the village with a number of locally listed and nationally listed structures in close proximity. In addition the site falls close to Land of Local Landscape Importance (LLLI). A short distance to the north and east of the application site is a pair of gate piers which historically provided an axis entrance to West Stafford Manor House a Grade I Listed building in grounds dating from the 17th Century, the LLLI is part of and encompasses this Grade I Listed Manor House. It is regrettable that the application lacks any detailed heritage analysis of the site and its surroundings - this will be essential at application stage.
5.15 The village has no DDB and so the development would be classed as being in open countryside. Due to the Local Plan housing position the principle of a development here appears to have been agreed at pre-application stage.
5.16 Proposals:
There is no principle objection to the development of up to 10 dwellings on this site in conservation terms. The number of dwellings has been halved since the pre-application stage in 2015 and the improvement in massing and spacing is clear. The access is situated beyond the locally significant buildings and historic core which is a benefit although the material and landscaping of this access needs to be conditioned. The substantial hedgerow that currently encloses the site to the west appears to be retained. I would press that this natural feature certainly needs to be retained as part of any proposal for development as it provides a soft green buffer between other properties (albeit modern), retains the more rural character to the lane and offers some natural landscaping and screening from an otherwise unsightly area of hardstanding for parking. Further details on the form of landscaping and parking treatment will need careful attention at full planning stage. The key issues I have with the scheme are:
5.17 · The positioning of buildings, turning corners. This approach always creates awkward frontages and roof pitches, which are non traditional and out of character with historic/rural settings. Plot 1 certainly needs to be changed to a symmetrical detached dwelling and properties 4, 5 and 6 should also ideally be re-modelled to a straight terrace or a detached and 2 semi-detached properties. · There are concerns that the self-build plots could result in a more individual approach to design quality and choice of materials which could be at odds with the rest of the estate. Whether now is the time or later - there has to be rigorous control over the quality of design and use of materials used in this site for all the properties.
5.18 The success of this scheme will depend heavily on the detailed design of dwellings, choice of materials, landscaping, parking and surface details for paths, access and parking areas.
Page 74 This needs to be considered carefully before full application stage and the approach may benefit from initial pre-application advice. Certainly in the case of the photomontage, the brick built dwellings do not appear as successful as the flint and thatched properties.
5.19 Executive Summary:
The number of dwellings and access location are acceptable on conservation grounds however we need to control the road surfacing treatment and pathways by condition and ensure that the mature hedge flanking the site and Wynd Close is retained as part of the proposals. The angled properties that turn corners should be amended as suggested and there needs to be careful control over the self build plot designs and materials.
Recommendation: In determining the proposals due consideration has been given to Section 12 of the NPPF, Sections 66 (setting of listed buildings), 72 (setting of conservation areas) of the 1990 Act and Env 4 policies of the Local Plan.
5.20 WDDC Housing Enabling Team: The West Dorset District Council’s Housing Register currently has over 1500 households registered as being in affordable housing need. To address this need the Council’s Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) suggests that in the region of 130 new affordable dwellings will need to be developed each year. This outline application proposes the erection of 10 houses – 3 detached properties, a terrace of 3 properties and 2 pairs of semi-detached properties with associated parking.
5.21 The proposal states that it intends to deliver 35% on-site affordable housing which will be either “starter homes”, which are not affordable homes and therefore not NPPF compliant, or transferred to a Registered Provider to be made available for either rent or purchase. The type and tenures to be agreed and secured through a S106 agreement. It is also proposed that three of the properties will be offered as self-build plots for purchase. As this development is a scheme which will provide ten units it is not required to make any on-site provision however it does fall within the 5 – 10 threshold and would therefore be expected to make a financial contribution. This would be based on the floor area of the residential properties.
5.22 The proposed scheme is on land east of Wynd Close, West Stafford is for a small scheme of ten units and is not therefore required to make any on-site provision, it is, however, expected that a financial contribution should be made however the delivery of affordable housing instead of financial contribution would be acceptable. There is a high level of housing need in the District and therefore any affordable homes provided within this development would help to meet the need.
5.23 Dorset Waste Partnership: No comments.
5.24 Environmental Health: Public Health’s records indicate that the proposed development lies within 250m of areas with historic potentially contaminative land uses. These areas have been identified as a Low Risk sites through the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy. Please apply the following –Unexpected Contamination Condition:
Page 75 5.25 Landscape Officer: The site lies within the Crossways Gravel Plateau character area - and has the potential to accommodate small-scale development owing to its low-lying and flat nature. Existing hedges and trees fore-shorten views owing to the topography. Trees are of major importance to the character and quality of the area – providing village ‘entry’ elements, defining ‘edges’ of development and breaking up elevations and roofscapes. Previous landscape observations for the site highlighted the need for “robust planting between the units, in gardens and the street scene, breaking up and filtering views within the site and to roof lines. We would also expect a high quality traditional design of dwellings, utilising high quality roofing and façade materials, and high quality hard and soft landscaping throughout the development”. I would endorse these comments.
5.26 There is no principle objection to the development of up to 10 dwellings on this site in landscape terms. The proposed number of dwellings has halved since the pre-application stage. The recently revised site layout allows for the retention of the western boundary hedge – bar the proposed new access point off Wynd Close. A LVIA is submitted with the proposal and would appear to be fair in its content and conclusions. A Landscape Masterplan is included within the Assessment – indicating new hedge/tree planting along the eastern boundary, a green open space in the north-west corner and south-east corner, small front gardens to cottages, and the addition of native trees to the western boundary. In principle these measures would be acceptable. Any new access arrangements into the site should minimise the loss of hedgebank to the western boundary (the bank reduces in scale as one heads southwards along the western boundary)
5.27 The introduction of such a development would adversely affect the localised character through the loss of an open landscape on the settlement edge – however through sensitive design and a robust landscaping strategy the longer term effects could vary from moderate to minor. Local Plan policies ENV1 and ENV10 seek to conserve character and local distinctiveness - and the proposed development would potentially give rise to effects that would be local in nature, and limited to a small number of receptors, with no specific statutory protection afforded to the landscape of this area. If you were minded to recommend approval of the application I would suggest that alongside hard and soft landscape conditions it may be prudent to condition external lighting details too in order to conserve rural character.
6. Other representations 6.1 14 letters have been received from third parties. These raise the following issues;
· Traffic impacts and road safety · Set precedent for further development in Wynd Close · Site is outside the development boundary for the village · Overdevelopment in a Conservation Area · Too vague as to no. of units · Does not include affordable housing · Not enough infrastructure in village to support development · Extends village onto agricultural land. · Villagers reliant on cars to access services/facilities in Dorchester
Page 76 · Impact of proposed access on appearance of the Conservation Area · LVA fails to address impacts to The Manor House · Impact of users of the public footpath · Policy SUS2 should be given full weight · Pumping station at full capacity · Village surrounded by developments underway or proposed · Premature before decision on LP review is made · There are other sites around Dorchester to provide housing · Restricted visibility from Wynd Close · Impact on Wynd Close properties · Noise · West Stafford important to tourism · Schools capacity · Biodiversity/protected species · Village’s links to Hardy · Loss of views · Light pollution · Construction traffic using the lane · Access should be from the West Stafford-Lewell road · Disturbance during construction · Wynd Close is also a public bridleway · Lack of footways in village if traffic increases · Overlooking/loss of privacy · Overbearing impact
One letter supports the scheme as local businesses will benefit and new residents will benefit the community. Affordable housing is needed for younger families. Change is good and should be welcomed in a caring community.
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 Officer
Page 77 9. The Development Plan
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) INT1 - Presumption in favour of sustainable development SUS1 - The Level of Economic And Housing Growth SUS2 - Distribution of Development ENV1 - Landscape, seascape and sites of geological interest ENV2 - Wildlife & Habitats ENV4 - Heritage assets ENV5 - Flood Risk ENV9 - Pollution & Contaminated Land ENV10 - The landscape and townscape setting ENV11 - The pattern of streets and spaces ENV15 - Efficient & Appropriate Use of Land ENV16 – Amenity HOUS1 - Affordable Housing HOUS3 - Open market housing mix HOUS6 - Other Residential Development Outside Defined Development Boundaries COM1 - Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision For Community Infrastructure COM7 - Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network COM9 - Parking Standards in New Development COM10 - The Provision of Utilities Service Infrastructure
10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines SPD (2009). 10.2 Landscape Character Assessment SPD (2009)
11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 West Stafford Conservation Area Appraisal (2007)
“Trees and hedgerows provide strong features at both of the main village entrances;” (p.4)
“C18 and early C19 maps show that there were once routes from… modern Wynd Close to West Knighton but the railway subsequently diminished their importance. The latter route also continued northwards, past the Manor House and across the river, establishing a crossroads that provided the eastern focus or centre of village activity.” (p.26)
11.2 Site boundary along Wynd Close identified as an “important hedgerow” on the Setting & Assets map on p.27
12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
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
Page 78 • where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless: · any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole; · or where specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted.
12.2 The NPPF also states that:
Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground. (Para. 186)
Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work pro actively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. (Para. 187)
12.3 Other sections of the NPPF relevant to this application are listed below. These will be referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
Section Subject
1.Building a strong, competitive economy
6.Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
7.Requiring good design
8.Promoting healthy communities
12.Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
12.4 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 referred to in the “Planning issues” section of the report.
Page 79 13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of Development: West Stafford is identified as a settlement of 200+ population without a defined development boundary in the adopted Local Plan (Table p.76). The spatial strategy in Policy SUS2 has a three-tiered approach, advising that “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.”
13.2 Policy SUS2 also advises that development outside of Defined Development Boundaries will be “strictly controlled” and limited to the exceptions listed in the policy. This includes affordable housing, but not open market housing. Therefore the provision of open market housing on the site is on the face of it contrary to SUS2, unless it can be shown to be meeting a need for growth locally.
13.3 It should be noted that Policy SUS2 is broadly consistent with the advice in paragraph 55 of the NPPF relating to housing in rural areas. This seeks to direct rural housing to locations where they will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. The Government’s guidance suggests an example of where development in one village may support services in a village nearby.
13.4 West Stafford does not meet the criteria for a DDB in the Local Plan because it does not have the range of services and facilities of the larger DDB villages such as a school for example. It does retain its village pub and some limited employment facilities but no village shop. There are currently very limited public transport services through the village with two services (Dorchester - Weymouth & Dorchester – Crossways) running only one bus per day in each direction on schooldays only. Nonetheless, it would be difficult to suggest the site is isolated and remote being less than 3 miles from the centre of Dorchester and under two miles from its eastern fringe. Some of the options for the future growth of Dorchester in the Council’s Initial Issues and Options Consultation are further from the centre of Dorchester.
13.5 Nonetheless, whilst being linked to the town by National Cycle Route 2 and with the opportunity for occupiers of the proposed development to access some facilities by sustainable means, it is accepted that it will be necessary to make private car trips for most day-to-day activities. This is behind why the village does not have a DDB. Therefore the village is not a sustainable location for significant residential expansion. Nonetheless there is scope for a scheme to meet the criteria in Policy SUS2 if a case could be made to show it to be meeting local needs, thereby supporting the continued viability of West Stafford.
13.6 It is noted that Policy SUS3 permits open market housing within the village as part of the adaption and re-use of an existing building. So the Local Plan does not regard the settlement as wholly unacceptable for any form of new residential development although any levels of development coming from SUS3 are likely to be limited.
Page 80 Having checked our records, this concession in Policy SUS3 has not resulted in any new dwellings being approved in the parish. This could be interpreted as showing a lack of demand for new dwellings or may simply show a lack of suitable existing buildings for conversion. Currently any need for growth in the village has not been met through SUS3 currently but may still do during the life of the Local Plan.
13.7 Principle of Development – Conclusion: Due to the potential policy conflicts of developing the site against the Local Plan’s broader spatial strategy, the assessment of the principle of the development of the site is a balanced one. The presumption in favour of sustainable development in Policy INT1 advises that in assessing the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan will be taken into account. The plan’s strategic objectives are to meet local housing needs for all as far as is possible. However, the plan’s objective is also to provide greater opportunities to reduce car use which the scheme would be unlikely to achieve and to support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities.
13.8 Bearing in mind the thrust of Policy SUS2, it is considered that the principle of the development of this site could only be justified if it met the criteria of being some growth to meet local needs. Any development beyond a scale of meeting a strictly local need should be directed to more sustainable locations such as Dorchester or the villages with DDBs. However, if the scheme could be shown to be meeting the local need for growth in West Stafford itself (explored below), then members could legitimately give weight to this. However, as an overall principle, major development should be directed towards the most sustainable locations under SUS2 and therefore Dorchester would be the preferred location for such development.
13.9 Meeting Local Need: The Council’s monitoring of its housing land supply reveals that there have been no new houses in the village over the last five years. Whilst this is not hugely surprising given the settlement does not have a DDB, it is interesting that the opportunities given to convert redundant buildings to dwellings in the village under Policy SUS3 have not been taken up since the new LP was adopted in 2015. This is particularly so bearing in mind the attractiveness of the location for those wanting reasonable access and proximity to Dorchester’s facilities but favouring an historic village location.
13.10 The village design statement dating from 2002 states that the village grew by over 80% in the period 1960 – 2000, with its population standing at 278 at the time of this document. There has not therefore been any noticeable growth in the village in the intervening 15 years and thereby any demand for growth in the village has not been met recently. At the 2011 census the village population is recorded as 291. A scheme for 10 units of the scale indicated could be expected to have occupancy levels of 2 – 2.5 persons per dwelling with a possible increase in the village population of around 10% over the course of the development. 35% of the units would be affordable housing helping to meet this acute need locally. The comments of the Housing Enabling Team are noted and due to the ongoing very high levels of affordable housing requirements in West Dorset, it can be safely concluded that the affordable housing provision is justified in meeting local need.
Page 81 However, there is a question as to whether that contribution should be best used to provide affordable housing specifically for need in West Stafford or in a more sustainable location.
13.11 This leaves the remaining open market provision (7 units) and whether these are justified to meet local needs for the growth of West Stafford. This is difficult in some ways because we are considering an outline consent to establish the principle of erecting 10 dwellings on the land. The indicative layout suggests a range of housing types with terraced, semi-detached & detached properties indicated. The Local Plan notes that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment underpinning the plan indicates a greater need for two and three bedroom homes. The indicative plan would comply with Policy HOUS3 to ensure residential schemes secure a mix in the size, type and affordability of dwellings proposed and this would be compatible with the wider character of the village as a whole.
13.12 It should be noted that if this outline permission is granted, the Council still needs to apply Policy HOUS3 to any reserved matters scheme (RM) to ensure an appropriate mix of dwellings is secured. Therefore the Council can still protect against the prospect of a RM scheme which at one extreme proposed only large detached properties for the open market units for example as this would on the face of it fail against HOUS3.
13.13 Meeting Local Need - Conclusion: This issue is finely balanced. The application states the development will meet an identifiable need for housing but this is in relation to housing need overall rather than the village specifically. The scheme would provide for a notable but not substantial growth of the village. The ability to convert existing buildings under Policy SUS3 has not delivered any new dwellings and there have been no residential approvals in the village for more than 5 years. Indeed a trawl of the historic records suggests no residential permissions have been granted since 2002 when it is understood the village had a DDB under the 1998 West Dorset Local Plan.
13.14 Bearing in mind the growth of the village has been strictly controlled in the intervening period, it would be difficult to argue that growth for local need in the village had been met in the intervening period. Therefore in this context, the provision of a limited number of dwellings in a range of types and sizes (to be secured at the reserved matters stage) could legitimately be considered to be consistent with the part of Policy SUS2 that settlements with no defined development boundary may also have some growth to meet their local needs. Members would need to be satisfied that such a level of need for 10 dwellings exists and there is no specific evidence to support this other than a lack of recent development as set out above. The scheme would also still fail against the wider spatial strategy in SUS2.
13.15 Housing Land Supply: Currently the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply (HLS) with its supply currently established at 4.94 years at its most recent monitoring. Whilst this is close to the required 5-year level in the NPPF, as a matter of fact it remains below. Therefore the Local Plan policies for the supply of housing are out-of-date as per paragraph 49 of the NPPF. This includes Policy SUS2.
Page 82 This does not mean that the Council can no longer have regard to its spatial strategy - it can - but it does not carry its full statutory weight. The Council instead has to apply a “tilted balance” as set out in paragraph 14 of the NPPF.
13.16 This part of the NPPF sets out the presumption in favour of sustainable development that permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits or specific policies in the NPPF indicate that the development should be restricted (the “Footnote 9 policies”). The Footnote 9 designations do not apply to this particular site with the exception of the reference to designated heritage assets.
13.17 It should be noted that a recent supreme court case has established that when considering whether specific policies indicate development should be restricted, this is to include not just Government guidance but also local policies in the development plan.
13.18 The site adjoins the Conservation Area and thereby potentially affects its setting and potentially impacts the setting of more distant listed buildings. This is assessed in more detail below. However, for the purposes of applying the tilted balance we are considering whether the NPPF & the LP policies “indicate development should be restricted”. So Policy ENV4 seeks to have sufficient information to assess proposals against the significance of the heritage asset (HA). Furthermore, the policy acknowledges that harm may occur to a HA as a result of a proposal but this is to be weighed against the public benefits of the scheme.
13.19 This reflects the advice in the NPPF. The NPPF warns against the substantial harm or total loss of significance of a heritage asset (para. 133) but it is difficult to imagine a proposal which could compromise an entire Conservation Area to this extent, particularly one which only affects its setting. It is noted the advice in the NPPF affecting the other Footnote 9 policies for example is more explicit such as para. 118 which states that development which has an adverse effect on a Site of Special Scientific Interest should not normally be permitted.
13.20 Housing Land Supply - Conclusion: A recent Court of Appeal decision - Barwood Strategic Land II LLP v East Staffordshire BC and SSCLG [2017] confirms how the presumption in paragraph 14 of the NPPF should be applied. This confirms an earlier Supreme Court judgement that where a Council does not have a 5-year supply, Paragraph 49 acts as a trigger for applying the tilted balance in paragraph 14 of the NPPF. The weight to be given to policies, whether for the supply of housing or restrictive policies is a matter for planning judgement. In particular, the decision-maker would need to have regard to whether continuing to apply environmental and amenity policies with their “full rigour” would frustrate the objective of the NPPF to provide more housing. The Council needs take a wider view of the development plan policies and should be disposed to grant permission unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
Page 83 13.21 The conclusion in this instance is that the relevant Footnote 9 policies do not indicate that development should be restricted. This does not mean it is concluded that the scheme complies with Policy ENV4 at this stage as this particular assessment is made below. However, for the purposes of applying the titled balance in paragraph 14, the focus shifts to the question of assessing the relevant material considerations.
13.22 So the basic principle to be considered is whether a consideration of the remaining material considerations suggests an overriding harm which warrants refusal of the application. In this regard the unsustainable location is a significant factor. If the Council’s HLS is deficient, it needs to consider opportunities to bolster this supply. Members will be aware of a number of proposals for sites outside of DDBs where officers have recommended approval for development which might otherwise be resisted were Policy SUS2 to be afforded its full weight. However, these sites adjoin settlements with development boundaries. If more houses need to go into the supply, the Councils should look to the most sustainable opportunities to deliver this in line with the strategy in SUS2. In general this would not include villages without DDBs such as West Stafford
13.23 Impact on village character and landscape: The site lies at the current eastern edge of the village with an intervening two fields to the hamlet of Talbothays beyond. The site lies in the Crossways Gravel Plateau Landscape Character Area. The site is outside of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, the boundary of which is approximately 1.8km due west of the site. The site is also outside of the former Land of Local Landscape Importance which was designated under the previous Local Plan. The boundary of the former LLLI lies directly north of the site along the Talbothays lane. There is no policy to ‘protect’ LLLIs from development in the current Local Plan or their “setting”. However, Policy ENV3 seeks to consider these areas as part of a “green infrastructure network”. The development of this site would not compromise the ability to include the former LLLI land in any such network.
13.24 Therefore the site lies outside of the most sensitive landscape designations in the surrounding area. The landscape officer’s assessment is noted that there is no in-principle wider landscape harm arising from the development of the site. With the exception of the western boundary hedge and bank outside the proposed access, there are no particular features within the site which would need to be retained as part of any development. There is a gradual fall in the land from south to the north adjoining the burial ground but otherwise the site is relatively unconstrained and there would be no particular barrier to delivering a scheme sympathetic to the village’s character at the RM stage.
13.25 In addition, it is also noted that the village is constrained in opportunities to expand the settlement in alternative locations. For example the other route to the village from the north-east falls within the village Conservation Area. This takes in the surrounding water meadows which form part of the setting of the Grade I listed properties at Stafford House and The Manor House. The gardens surrounding Stafford House are also noted as being of local importance. The Conservation Area Appraisal notes the landscape quality of the village’s setting noting the landscaped grounds of the two large houses and an extensive area of water meadow.
Page 84 13.26 The Water Meadows surrounding West Stafford to the north are also an area of high flood risk (Flood Zone 3) which extends up to the village’s current fringes including to its’ western side. South of the village, the railway line forms a very definite edge. There is a mineral safeguarding area surrounding the village (which includes the application site). The majority of the northern and eastern fringe of the village is surrounded by the former Land of Local Landscape Importance designation. Only a small parcel of land on the eastern edge of the village (east of the Old Rectory) is similarly unconstrained. However, there is no obvious access route to this land other than via a public bridleway or the existing village play area.
13.27 Impact on village character and landscape - Conclusion: The village is compact and nucleated, in its current form reflecting some of the above constraints. Opportunities for any expansion of the village are constrained by the factors noted above. Development on the site would potential appear as a logical addition to the village but at the same time breach a clear current boundary to the village at Wynd Close, opening up further land for development. It is noted at the pre-application stage officers were concerned with the landscape impacts of a larger scheme. Nonetheless, if a need is accepted to provide modest growth for the village, then the site maybe a more obviously preferable option for the reasons above.
13.28 The scheme would lead to the urbanising of this currently open field. Notwithstanding this, the landscape impacts of developing the land are considered to be acceptable in principle in this instance. The scheme therefore complies with Policies ENV 1 and ENV 10 of the Local Plan.
13.29 Heritage Assets: The site borders the designated West Stafford Conservation Area in its north-western corner. In addition there are distant views from the site towards the Grade I listed The Manor House and its individually listed gate piers on the Talbothays lane. In addition, there are views across the fields from the site to Talbothays Lodge to the east. The impact of the scheme on the setting of these heritage assets is examined in turn.
13.30 Conservation Area: There is an adopted Conservation Area Appraisal (CAA) for West Stafford. The adopted Local Plan confirms these are a material consideration (paragraph 2.2.5) in determining applications. There are references to the environs of the site in the CAA as set out in paragraphs 11.1 – 11.2 above. The creation of the access to the site would require removal of part of the hedgerow along Wynd Close. This impact is reduced from the original plan by the re-siting of the access to the south where the extent of excavation required will be less, but it nonetheless is considered to have a minor negative impact on the character of the Conservation Area.
13.31 The other aspect is the potential impact of the scheme on the setting of the Conservation Area, particularly on the approach to the village from the east. In this regard the comments of both the Conservation & landscape officers are noted. Views will be across the intervening burial ground, with development set back around 30m from the lane. Currently on the approach from this direction the properties in Wynd Close are visible. The resulting impact of the development is to bring development further east in these views, filtered through the proposed tree and hedge planting indicated in the landscape masterplan.
Page 85 With suitable attention to landscape, design and materials the development of the site is considered to result in minor-to-moderate impacts on views towards the village and it’s Conservation Area on approach from the east.
13.32 Setting of listed buildings: The Manor House is a Grade I listed dwelling, sited approximately 150m north-east of the site. In addition its former entrance gate piers (the entrance is abandoned) are also individually listed grade II. These are approximately 80m north-east of the application site. Due to the scale of the proposed development, the distances involved and the presence of the intervening burial ground, any impact to the setting of these listed structures (or any other within the village) is considered to be no more than minor.
13.33 The listed Talbothays Lodge, designed by Hardy is approximately 500m due east with currently open views across the fields. Due to the distances involved and the intervening land, the development of this site is not considered to adversely affect the setting of this listed building.
13.34 Heritage Assets – Conclusion: The NPPF advises that; “Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.” The test in the adopted LP policy ENV4 is that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset must be justified. And that all reasonable efforts have been made to mitigate the extent of the harm to the significance of the asset. The benefits of the scheme are set out in the balancing exercise at the end of the report. Due to the minor nature of the impacts identified and the lack of objection from the Conservation Officer, it is considered that these impacts would be outweighed by the public benefits of additional housing to meet local needs, particularly affordable housing. Accordingly, the scheme is considered to comply with Policy ENV4.
13.35 Neighbour’s living conditions: The residential properties principally affected by the development are the dwellings at 1 – 6 Wynd Close, 1 – 2 Chestnut Cottages and Bramshurst, all of which lie due west of the site. The Wynd Close properties are set back from the highway with large frontages and there is approximately 28m from the front elevation of 6 Wynd Close to the site boundary. At the closest point, there is approximately 18m from the corner of 2 Chestnut Cottages, across to the north-west corner of the site.
13.36 At these distances, it is considered that it will be straightforward to design a scheme which maintains acceptable privacy levels at neighbouring properties and complies with the guidance of 20m window-to-window distances set down in the Council’s adopted design SPD (para. 7.5.2). The properties in Wynd Close would have their current views across open countryside to the east affected by the development of the land. However, the planning system does not seek to protect particular private views. As a result of the development, the properties in Wynd Close would face the new dwellings across the road – an entirely common domestic relationship.
Page 86 13.37 Bearing in mind the separation distances above, it is considered that with similarly domestic scale architecture, the new properties would not result in an overbearing impact. Nor would the development breach the test in Policy ENV16 of having a significant adverse effect on the outlook from these properties. There would be additional traffic along Wynd Close arising from the scheme and increased activity on the site over its current agricultural use. Nonetheless, the activity and traffic movements arising from 10 units on the site is not considered to fail the test in ENV16 that development should not generate a level of activity or noise that will detract significantly from the character and amenity of the area or the quiet enjoyment of residential properties.
13.38 For occupiers of the properties, there is considered to be adequate room to accommodate 10 dwellings on the site. At 0.39ha, the density of the development would be 26 dwellings per hectare, a medium-to-low density. The indicative plans show how 10 units could be provided on the site with adequate private gardens and amenity space, parking and acceptable privacy for occupiers, complying with Policy ENV16.
13.39 Neighbour’s living conditions – Conclusion: Due to the position of the site and the distances to the nearest residential properties, it is considered entirely feasible to design a scheme for 10 units on the site which would minimize the impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of existing residents. There are no grounds to conclude that any development of the site would by default result in a significant adverse effect on the privacy or outlook of existing properties, or automatically result in an overbearing impact. The level of activity associated with 10 dwellings would not detract significantly from the character and amenity of the area. The site can provide for adequate living conditions for the occupiers of the proposed properties. The scheme therefore complies with Policy ENV16.
13.40 Highway safety/Parking: The application seeks permission for the access at this stage and this is not reserved for future approval. The only road frontage for the site is along Wynd Close. As noted above, the originally proposed access point has been moved further south to minimise the impact of the access on the Conservation Area. The proposals have been assessed by the Highways Authority who have not raised objections to the scheme. The volume of traffic generated by 10 dwellings is highly likely to be able to be accommodated on the local highway network without exacerbating community severance or causing severe cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network in the vast majority of site across the district. These are the tests in Policy COM7 and the scheme meets this criteria.
13.41 The response of the Highways Authority confirms that the development complies with the requirement in COM7 that development will not have a severe detrimental effect on road safety. The concerns of the PC over pedestrian safety are noted. There is a lack of modern width standard pavements throughout the village, particularly along the main east-west village street. This is part of its historic character. Officers are guided by the Highways Authority in their assessment of risks to pedestrians as a result. Examining DCC’s own road traffic collision data reveals no incidents recorded within the village itself over the last five years.
Page 87 The scheme would have sufficient room to provide adequate parking for the proposed properties in line with the adopted standards in the Bournemouth, Poole & Dorset Residential Car Parking Study.
13.42 Highway safety/Parking – Conclusion: The traffic generated by 10 dwellings on the site will be relatively modest notwithstanding that this will use the rural lanes leading to the village and the historic village street. The scheme has demonstrated how the site can be satisfactorily accessed and officers are satisfied that the access to the site can be agreed at this stage as sought by the appellants. There are impacts from the development as set out by third parties and the Parish Council, however no overriding evidence is before members at this time that the scheme would cause severe effects. This is the test in Policy COM7. Bearing in mind the statutory consultee does not object, the scheme is considered to have acceptable highway impacts.
13.43 Community infrastructure Levy: Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does have local finance considerations.
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 square metre CIL rate.
The development proposal is CIL liable.
A levy is not raised at this stage because the proposal is for an outline planning permission and full details are unknown. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development and attached to any reserved matters consent. Index linking as required by the CIL Regulations (Reg 40) is applied to all liability notices issued, using the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. CIL payments are index linked from the year that CIL was implemented (2016) to the year that planning permission is granted.
13.44 Heathland Mitigation & Biodiversity: The application site is within 5km of both the Warmwell and Winfrith heathland SSSIs. These European-level designations are in recognition of the international importance of the surviving fragments of lowland heath in Dorset. These provide habitats for numerous protected species including all native reptile species. Monitoring and evidence from Natural England demonstrates the negative impacts of increased residential development in proximity to the protected heathlands. NE’s evidence demonstrates that increases in residential populations up to 5km from heathlands can adversely impact on the integrity of the heaths particularly when the cumulative impacts of all residential development within a 5km zone is taken into account.
Page 88 13.45 NE’s position is that residential development can nonetheless occur within the zone up to 5km provided suitable mitigation is provided for the impacts of development on the integrity of the heathlands. In the majority of cases this takes the form of a financial contribution per dwelling which is used for management of existing heaths such as wardening or education and the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG).
13.46 Heathland Mitigation & Biodiversity – Conclusion: Following the adoption of the Council’s CIL-charging regime (see above), financial contributions towards heathland mitigation are “top-sliced” out of the CIL amounts to be put towards suitable alternative natural greenspace and management of existing heaths in the area. As a result of this approach, officers are content that this will satisfy an appropriate assessment under the Habitat Regulations and will provide acceptable mitigation for the impact of the development on the Sites of Special Scientific Interest. In addition DCC’s Natural Environment Team have confirmed their agreement to the submitted Biodiversity Mitigation Plan. The scheme thereby complies with Policy ENV2.
13.47 Affordable Housing: Policy HOUS1 in the Local Plan seeks affordable housing contributions on all new residential development. For West Dorset, the requirement is for all new dwellings to make a 35% contribution towards affordable housing due to significant unmet need. 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.
13.48 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 outside designated rural areas. West Stafford lies in a designated rural area as does the majority of West Dorset district (all parishes bar Chickerell, Dorchester & Sherborne). In such designated rural areas, the NPPG advises LPAs may choose to apply a lower threshold of 5-units or less. The NPPG then states; “where the lower 5-unit or less threshold is applied, affordable housing and tariff style contributions should be sought from developments of between 6 and 10-units in the form of cash payments which are commuted until after completion of units within the development.” The Council resolved to apply the changed thresholds to Policy HOUS1 at the Executive Committee in August 2016.
13.49 Therefore, were the Council to support the scheme, applying the guidance in the NPPG, it could only require a financial contribution towards off-site provision under HOUS1. In this case the applicants are offering to make an on-site provision. So whilst this cannot be insisted upon, securing this on-site provision through a S106 agreement can be given significant weight as a benefit of the scheme, particularly if it is accepted there is a specific need for new affordable housing in West Stafford itself. A financial contribution towards AH off-site should still be given substantial weight as this would deliver affordable housing in an arguably more sustainable location.
Page 89 13.50 Affordable Housing - Conclusion: In considering the weight to be given to the affordable housing provision, regard does need to be had that in order to deliver this would mean accepting the remainder of the open market dwellings in a location contrary to Policy SUS2 in order to secure this. A scheme which was fully affordable is potentially policy-compliant with Policy HOUS2 as an exception site, subject to identifying the need for such a scheme. However, this is not before members. In addition, para. 5.2.11 of the Local Plan notes that;
13.51 “Allowing market housing cross-subsidy on exception sites was considered when this plan was prepared. This can be brought forward where the community wants it, through neighbourhood planning, as it would not be contrary to the strategic policies in this plan. And there are communities actively working on such schemes. But it has not been included as a general policy because it would reduce the likelihood of 100% affordable housing sites being delivered (so reducing the potential for affordable housing where there are few developable sites), and it could also result in significant unplanned growth adjoining settlements.”
13.52 So approval of this scheme would be directly contrary to the position taken in the Local Plan regarding the delivery of affordable housing in rural areas. Nonetheless the securing of such a benefit would still need to be given due weight in the balancing exercise below. Officer’s reservation about this being given undue weight and thereby tipping the balance towards approval is the possible precedent set for development which is contrary to para.5.2.11 above leading to similar proposals across the district which may result in the harm identified. Also there is the concern that if the Council approved the scheme but the applicants later successfully argued the scheme was insufficiently viable to deliver the affordable housing, the Authority would already be committed to residential development and may find a fully open market development difficult to resist as a result.
14. Summary 14.1 Balancing Exercise: Where the Council cannot demonstrate a 5-year Housing Land Supply, the ‘tilted balance’ in paragraph 14 of the NPPF applies to the determination of the application. In this scenario, development should be approved 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 specific policies in the Framework (and relevant Local Plan policies) indicate development should be restricted. Policy INT1 of the LP similarly promotes the presumption in favour of sustainable development.
14.2 The NPPF clarifies that there are three strands to sustainable development; economic, environmental and social. There are economic benefits from the construction phase and possible economic benefits from additional residents in the village supporting local businesses. The scheme would provide a small boost to housing supply, moving this closer to a 5-year supply. Overall these benefits would be moderate but nonetheless positive.
Page 90 14.3 The environmental impacts overall are considered to be negative. There are impacts to the landscape character but mitigation for this in the landscape masterplan. There are impacts to heritage assets which are not considered to be significant. The site can satisfactorily accommodate 10 units whilst minimizing the impact on the amenity and quiet enjoyment of both existing residents and providing acceptable living conditions for the proposed occupiers.
14.4 However, the scheme would fail against the spatial strategy in Policy SUS2 in not directing development in rural areas to the most sustainable locations, being those villages with DDBs. Also due to the site’s proximity to Dorchester, there is an argument that any housing need should be met in the town as one of the two most sustainable locations for new development in the LP strategy. Occupiers would only be able to meet a limited amount of their day-to-day needs without using a private car due to the paucity of public transport options. Such journeys may be relatively short due to the proximity to Dorchester, but the frequency of such trips would likely be the same as a more remote location due to the lack of facilities and public transport in West Stafford.
14.5 There are potentially significant social benefits to the scheme in providing affordable housing to meet a considerable unmet need. There are also possible wider social benefits to the vitality of the village in allowing a limited growth of the village to meet a currently unmet need if it is accepted that such need exists. The provision of affordable housing onsite can be afforded considerable weight. However, as set out in 13.50-52 above there are reservations and risks associated with giving the provision of affordable housing overriding weight.
14.6 There is a balance to be struck in considering a scheme such as this which would deliver new open market properties in a location which the LP does not envisage as the most sustainable location for rural development. The weighing of the factors on this application is finely balanced. The provision of major development in a settlement without a DDB is contrary to Policy SUS2 and there are negative environmental impacts from major development in this location. Policy SUS2 does not currently enjoy its full statutory weight due to the housing supply position. Nonetheless, bearing in mind the position is close to the 5 year level, it is considered that not all sites proposed for housing should be considered to be acceptable. If reasonable opportunities arise to bolster that supply, those that comply with the broad thrust of SUS2 by being located adjoining or adjacent to settlements with a DDB should be favoured above those in less sustainable rural locations such as this.
14.7 I have attached significant weight to the provision of affordable housing due to the extensive unmet need in the district. The consultation exercise has revealed a lack of technical objections to the development from statutory consultees. There is an arguable case why limited growth of the village is compliant with national policy. However, overall due to the conflict of allowing open market development to cross-subsidise affordable housing with the position in the Local Plan, I am persuaded that major development in this largely unsustainable location significantly and demonstrably outweighs the benefits of the affordable housing and the additional housing numbers.
Page 91 15. Recommendation 15.1 Refuse i. The site lies outside of any Defined Development Boundary (DDB) in the adopted Local Plan. West Stafford does not have a designated DDB in the Local Plan. The spatial strategy in adopted Policy SUS2 seeks to direct development in rural areas to the settlements with defined development boundaries in order to promote a sustainable pattern of development.
The provision of 10 houses on this site would fail to comply with the spatial strategy and would also be contrary to the Strategic Objectives of the Local Plan to provide greater opportunities to reduce car use and to support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities. For these reasons the scheme would not represent sustainable development and would therefore be contrary to Policies INT1 & SUS2 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) and the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).
Page 92 Agenda Item 8
Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/17/001668
Application Number: WD/D/17/001668 Change of Use
Registration Date: 22 August, 2017
Application Site: INNSACRE FARMHOUSE, SHIPTON ROAD, SHIPTON GORGE, BRIDPORT, DT6 4LJ
Proposal: Change of use and conversion of outbuilding to dwelling
Applicant: Mr Airy
Ward Members: Cllr M Roberts
Case Officer: Emma Telford
1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve subject to conditions
2. Description of development 2.1 The applicant seeks planning permission for the change of use and conversion of an outbuilding to a dwelling. This use would then be restricted to either holiday accommodation or ancillary accommodation by condition. The proposal would involve no external alterations to the building.
2.2 The site is located outside of a defined development boundary (DDB). It is located within a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
3. Main planning issues · Principle of Development · Visual Amenity · Residential Amenity · Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty · Setting of a Listed Building · Contaminated Land · Highway Safety · Community Infrastructure Levy
4. Statutory Consultations
Parish/Town Council 4.1 Shipton Gorge Parish Council – No comments received
4.2 Loders Parish Council - The proposal - To convert an existing workshop/outbuilding adjacent to Innsacre Farmhouse to form a single bedroom unit of independent accommodation. This will then be capable of being let or can be used for purposes ancillary to the principal dwelling.
Page 93 The plans show the proposed amenity area (garden) adjacent to the building and where parking will be provided.’
The external materials are unaltered namely – concrete blocks on the south elevation with timber windows and metal roof; natural stone and render on the west and north elevations with UPVC windows and slate roof – although the extent of the slate roof is not clear.
The proposed site is bounded along the length of its north side by a bridleway, BR 27. (See Dorsetforyou> rights of way). This originates in Shipton Road and runs east west across the Innsacre site and then curves north to the Dorchester Road (A35). This is not shown on the applicant’s maps or in the supporting documentation. In fact the applicant has clearly signified in part 24 of the accompanying application form that the site cannot be seen from a public road, public footpath, bridleway or other public land.
The Parish Council objects to this proposal for the following reasons:
1. The very close proximity of Bridleway 27 along the length of the north side of the building. This will have an adverse effect on the residential amenity of any future occupiers of the proposed dwelling.
2. The proposal is contrary to Loders Neighbourhood Plan (LNP) Policy E5: Location of Development in relation to the Defined Development Boundary (DDB).
This requires that “any new buildings deemed justified outside the DDB should be well-related to existing settlements / buildings and sensitively designed to respect and enhance the character of the local area.” At present, there are two independent dwellings (Innsacre Farmhouse and Sunshine House) located close together with respective garden areas and sharing a drive and a large parking area. A third is now proposed in a separate part of the curtilage and adjacent to other outbuildings.
This proposal does not meet this policy in terms of its relationship to existing settlements and the quality of it design to enhance the character of the local area.
3. The proposal is contrary to LNP Policy E6: Use of Redundant Rural Buildings.
This policy supports the development of a redundant rural building when it “makes a positive contribution to the local character, and is not in an isolated location”
The proposal cannot be said to make a positive contribution to the local character of the area either in terms of design or use.
4. The proposal is contrary to LNP Policy E4: To protect and enhance the character and appearance of the area.
This requires that all development should be sympathetic with adjacent buildings and achieve a high quality of design, use of materials and appropriate detailing which reflect local distinctiveness and respects the rural
Page 94 character of Loders Parish.
The proposal does not enhance the local character or distinctiveness of the rural character of the Parish.
5. This proposal is not in accordance with the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 Policy SUS3 concerning the Adaptation and Re-use of buildings outside Defined Development Boundaries. Policy SUS3 i) requires that the existing building ‘is of permanent and substantial construction, makes a positive contribution to the local character, and would not need to be substantially rebuilt or extended’.
6. This proposal is not in accordance with Paragraph 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework which states that local policies and decisions should ‘Respond to local character and history, and reflect the identity of local surroundings and materials, ...’
Highway Authority 4.3 No highway objection
5. Other consultations 5.1 Countryside Access Team – No comments received
5.2 Environmental Health – No comment
5.3 Technical Services - With regards to this application I have no objection on flooding grounds. I suggest you discuss the applicant’s concerns regards possible contamination of the water supply with Environmental Health or Building Control.
5.4 Building Control - Advised that the Environment Agency should be consulted on the proposed works due to the package treatment plant.
5.5 Environment Agency - Water Quality & Environmental Permitting Single dwellings would normally meet the requirements set out in in our small sewage treatment plant guidance. In this case the applicant has confirmed to your Authority that the discharge from the sewage treatment plant is to be discharged to surface water, not to ground.
The requirements for the applicant to meet to not require an Environmental Permit can be found at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/small-sewage-discharges-in-eng land-general-binding-rules . If the applicant were to discharge to a groundwater source, rather than to the surface water systems / watercourse indicated in their correspondence, then in order to meet these binding rules it states: The discharge must not be within 50 metres from any well, spring or borehole that is used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/general-binding-rules-small-sewage-discharge-t o-the-ground . If it were then the applicant would need to apply for a permit from the Environment Agency where we would consider its acceptability.
Page 95 6. Other representations 6.1 One third party response has been received in objection to the application which is set out in full below:
We own and live at Innsacre House and our adjoining annex The Hayloft, both of which are grade 2 listed buildings. Our garden adjoins the grounds of Innsacre Farmhouse over long boundary and the site of the proposed conversion is some 25m from our boundary at the closest point. Moreover, due to local topography, the site is elevated relative to both our properties.
Under section 66 of the Listed Building Act the setting of a listed building is protected. A building in the view of a listed building impacts on the setting. We believe the proposed conversion would have an adverse impact on the setting of both Innsacre House and The Hayloft.
In addition our only water supply is from a well situated at the rear of Innsacre House installed in around 1930.The applicant proposes a domestic sewage plant to provide drainage to the conversion. The proposed conversion is elevated relative to both our dwellings. The development site is some 70m from the well. We are concerned regarding outflow from any such installation which would clearly flow down towards the well. There is no permanent watercourse for the outflow, only a seasonal surface flow in heavy rain. We are concerned that a soak away system could lead to contamination of our water supply.
6.2 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 Officer 1/W/07/000887 FUL Fenestration alterations A 05 July JML 2007 1/W/83/000333 FUL Make alterations & changeuse of A 22 August barn to Guest House and 1983 Restaurant, modify existing vehicularaccess 1/W/88/000684 FUL Erect extension for living A 08 June SJ accommodation for proprietor 1992 1/W/91/000153 FUL Make internal alterations and fix A 18 April two external fire escapes to north 1991 elevation WD/D/16/0017 OBL Discharge of Section 106 A 14 SM 25 agreement dated 8/6/1992 Decembe relating to planning application r 2016 1/W/88/000684 WD/D/17/0002 CLE Use of buildings as A 13 April LFA 51 dwellinghouse with associated 2017 garden areas, ancillary outbuildings and access
Page 96 9. The Development Plan
West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) ENV 1 Landscape, Seascape and Site of Geological Interest ENV 4 Heritage Assets ENV 9 Pollution and Contaminated Land ENV 10 The landscape and townscape setting ENV 12 The design and positioning of buildings ENV 16 Amenity SUS 2 Distribution of Development SUS 3 Adaption and Re-use of Buildings outside Defined Development Boundaries ECON 6 Built Tourist Accommodation COM 7 Creating a safe and efficient transport network COM 9 Parking Standards in New Development
Loders Neighbourhood Plan (2016) LNP Policy E4 To Protect and Enhance the Character and Appearance of the Area LNP Policy E5 Location of Development in relation to the Defined Development Boundary (DDB) LNP Policy E6 Use of Redundant Rural Buildings
10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidance (adopted 2009)
11. Other Material Planning Considerations 11.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
Section 7 – Design Section 11 – Natural Environment Section 12 – Historic Environment
11.2 AONB Management Plan 2014 - 19 11.3 WDDC Landscape Character Assessment (2009) – Powerstock Hills
12. Planning issues 12.1 Principle of Development – The application site is located with the Loders Neighbourhood Plan Area. Concerns have been raised by the Parish Council regarding the compliance of the proposal with LNP Policy E5. This policy states that any new buildings and associated land should be located within the development boundary. However in this case the proposal is for the re-use of an existing building and therefore this policy is not considered to apply.
12.2 The application site is located outside of a defined development boundary (DDB) as set out in the Council's adopted Local Plan and would involve the conversion (re-use) of an existing building and is therefore considered against policy SUS 3 of the adopted WDDC/WPBC Local Plan.
This Policy states: SUS3. ADAPTATION AND RE-USE OF BUILDINGS OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
Page 97 i) The adaptation and re-use of rural buildings will be permitted where: • the existing building is of permanent and substantial construction, makes a positive contribution to the local character, and would not need to be substantially rebuilt or extended; and • their proposed form, bulk and design will make a positive contribution to the local character; ii) and where development is for one of the following uses: • employment; • community uses, where the buildings are accessible and immediately proximate to the community served; • affordable housing, where the proposal is capable of meeting an identified, current, local need which cannot otherwise be met; • essential rural workers’ dwellings; • open market housing or built tourist accommodation adjoining a settlement with a defined development boundary, or within or adjoining an established settlement of more than 200 population. In all cases only where the building/s was in existence in 2011; • open market housing or built tourist accommodation where the building adjoins an existing serviced residential building, and will be tied to the wider holding / main property and where the building/s was in existence in 2011; • other tourism uses, where there is a justifiable need for a rural location; • or, where the building is a designated heritage asset and none of the above are possible, the optimal viable use to secure its long term future.
The proposed development is considered to meet part i) of the policy. The existing building is considered to be of permanent construction and would not need to be substantially re-built or extended. The existing building consists of a mixture of materials however the prominent wall material is natural stone and no external alterations are proposed to accommodate the change of use. As such it is considred to make a positive contribution to local character. Furthermore the building is of substantial construction and would therefore remain in existence even if the proposal were to be refused. In terms of part ii) of the Policy the application property does not adjoin a settlement with a defined development boundary nor is it within or adjoining an established settlement of more than 200 population.
12.3 However, the proposal could be considered in relation to part ii) bullet point six. The proposal is considered to adjoin an existing serviced residential building, Innsacre Farmhouse and therefore is considered to comply with this element of the Policy. The agent has confirmed that the proposed use of the residential accommodation would be either to house relatives as a self contained annex or let as tourist accommodation. The proposed re-use of the building would provide exceptional planning benefits as it would provide accommodation to meet the need of family relatives and/or provide holiday accommodation which would benefit the local community by boosting the local tourism economy. It is therefore considered that subject to conditions restricting occupancy to family relatives or holiday accommodation, the proposed conversion to a unit of residential accommodation would be acceptable under this policy.
Page 98 12.4 The neighbourhood plan policy LNP Policy E6: Use of Redundant Rural Buildings states that (my underline emphasised)
"where a redundant rural building makes a positive contribution to the local character, and is not in an isolated location where substantial new infrastructure would be required, its re-use for housing, community or business use, where appropriate, will be supported".
The policy refers to the use ‘redundant buildings’ however the building is not considered to be redundant but is used for storage in association with the dwellinghouse. It would therefore continue in its current use if permission were not granted. The application site is located adjacent to two existing dwellings and in close proximity to a further dwelling, but substantial infrastructure would not be required to service the dwelling as the existing access and driveway would be used by the proposed unit and its location adjacent to an existing serviced dwelling means the proposal could be relatively easily linked into key utilities.
12.5 As the proposal includes holiday accommodation policy ECON 6 is also applicable. This Policy states (my bold emphasised);
ECON6. BUILT TOURIST ACCOMMODATION i) New built tourist accommodation will be supported: • Within an established settlement of more than 200 population; • Through the re-use of an existing building; • Through the replacement, intensification or extension of existing premises where the expansion would improve the quality and appearance of the accommodation and site. ii) Larger hotel / guesthouse developments should be located within the town centres. iii) Proposals that would result in the permanent loss or reduction in size of hotels and larger guesthouses will be resisted unless it can be demonstrated that their tourist function is no longer viable and there is no market for the business as a going concern.
The proposal is considered to comply with this policy as it would involve new built tourist accommodation through the re-use of an existing building.
Also in favour of the application is the NPPF which at para 55 states (see bold and underlined emphasis);
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 essential need for a rural worker to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; or ●●where such development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; or ●●where the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and lead to an enhancement to the immediate setting; or ●●the exceptional quality or innovative nature of the design of the dwelling.
Page 99 Such a design should: ––be truly outstanding or innovative, helping to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; ––reflect the highest standards in architecture; ––significantly enhance its immediate setting; and ––be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.
The Neighbourhood Plan in conjunction with the Council's Adopted Local Plan forms part of the "development plan" for application determination purposes but the proposal is considered to be acceptable in relation to both Neighbourhood Plan Policy E6 and Adopted WDDC/WPBC SUS3 Policy.
12.6 Visual Amenity – The proposed development would not have an adverse impact on the visual amenities of the site or locality. The proposal involves the conversion of the existing building with no external alterations proposed.
12.7 Residential Amenity – The proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact on the living conditions of occupiers of residential properties. The proposal involves the conversion of an existing building and the proposal is considered to be located sufficient distance away from neighbouring properties. Concerns were raised by the Parish Council in relation to the close proximity of the proposal to the bridleway. The bridleway does pass in close proximity to the north of the building and the associated amenity space however it is considered that the bridleway would not be in constant use and is therefore not a significant adverse impact.
12.8 Concerns were also raised regarding the package treatment plant proposed for the disposal of foul sewage and the impact of this arrangement on the neighbouring properties water supply. Originally the package treatment plant was proposed to be discharged to the running ditch however this has been confirmed to not be the case and would be discharged to a watercourse. The Environment Agency were consulted and considered that if the applicant were to discharge to a groundwater source, rather than to the surface water systems / watercourse indicated in their correspondence, then in order to meet these binding rules it states: The discharge must not be within 50 metres from any well, spring or borehole that is used to supply water for domestic or food production purposes. If it were then the applicant would need to apply for a permit from the Environment Agency where we would consider its acceptability. An informative will therefore be placed on any approval to this affect.
12.9 Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – It is considered that the proposal will not harm the character, special qualities or natural of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as the proposal involves the re-use of an existing building which would be viewed in relation to Innsacre Farmhouse.
12.10 Setting of a Listed Building – It is considered that the proposal will not adversely affect the setting of Innsacre and The Hayloft as the proposal involves the re-use of the existing building and there is considered to be sufficient spacing between the properties. This conclusion has been reached having regard to: (1) section 66(1) of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that requires special regard to be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the setting of Listed Buildings; and (2) Local Plan policy.
Page 100 12.11 Contaminated Land – The application is located within a contaminated land buffer however the proposal involves the re-use of the existing building and Environmental Health were consulted and had no comment to make on the application.
12.13 Highway Safety – The existing access would be retained and an area of sufficient parking is proposed. Furthermore DCC Highways were consulted on the application and held no highway objection.
12.14 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 square metre CIL rate.
The development proposal is not CIL liable.
13. Summary 13.1 The proposal involves the conversion of an existing building to residential accommodation (to be restricted by condition) and is considered to accord with the Loders Neighbourhood Plan Policy E6 and SUS 3 of the WDDC/WPBC Local Plan. The conversion would involve no external alterations and therefore the proposal is considered to have an acceptable impact on the AONB and visual amenity. Furthermore it is considered that the development would have an acceptable impact on highway safety, setting of the listed building, land contamination and residential amenity.
14. Recommendation 14.1 Approval is recommended subject to the following conditions: i. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans:
Location Plan - Drawing Number 10044-01 Rev D received on 22/08/2017 Proposed Floor Plan - Drawing Number 105/3 A received on 28/06/2017 Proposed Elevations - Drawing Number 105/4 A received on 28/06/2017 Block Plan - Drawing Number 10044-03 received on 22/08/2017
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
ii. 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).
iii. The accommodation subject to this permission shall be occupied for holiday purposes or occupied for purposes as an annex which form an integral part of the planning unit known as Innsacre Farmhouse as indicated as being within the blue line on the approved plan, drawing number: 10044-01 D.
REASON: To ensure the accommodation is not used as permanent residential accommodation which would not be appropriate at this location.
Page 101 iv. In the event the accommodation is used as holiday accommodation a register of all persons occupying the holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be kept by, or on behalf of, the owner/ owners of the holiday accommodation. The said register shall be made available for inspection during all reasonable hours at the request of a duly authorised officer of the Local Planning Authority, for such time as the development continues to be used as holiday accommodation.
REASON: To ensure that the accommodation is used for holiday purposes only.
Page 102 Agenda Item 9
Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/17/001943
Application Number: WD/D/17/001943 Listed Building Consent
Registration Date: 24 July, 2017
Application Site: OLD SHIRE HALL, HIGH WEST STREET, DORCHESTER
Proposal: Re-configuration of internal historic door
Applicant: West Dorset District Council
Ward Members: Cllr A Canning, Cllr Mrs S Hosford, Cllr D Taylor
Case Officer: Cass Worman
Application Number: WD/D/17/001943 Listed Building Consent
Registration Date: 24/07/2017
Application Site: OLD SHIRE HALL, HIGH WEST STREET, DORCHESTER
Proposal: Reconfiguration of internal door
Applicant: West Dorset District Council
Ward Members: Cllr A Canning, Cllr Mrs S Hosford, Cllr D Taylor
Case Officer: Cass Worman
1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve subject to conditions.
2. Description of development 2.1 This application is related to listed building consents reference no. WD/D/14/000863 and WD/D/15/002979 that granted approval for internal re-modelling to accommodate the change of use of the grade I listed building to a museum/visitor attraction and two residential units.
This application is related to the works to the internal door between the Georgian cells and the lobby at the base of the stairs to the courtroom in order to facilitate wheelchair access.
2.2 Listed building consent was originally sought for the following works:- Replacement of internal door between Zone 10 (Georgian Communal Cells) and Zone 11a (Lobby).
Page 103 2.3 The original application sought to remove a narrow historic door and frame and fix both to a nearby wall using mirror brackets to allow disabled access between the spaces.
2.4 Following discussions between the Conservation Officer and Historic England, the proposal has been revised so that the frame and door will not be removed but will remain insitu; alterations to the door and frame will allow the frame will be hinged to the wall to allow a wider opening for disabled access.
3. Main planning issues · Whether the works to the internal door in the Grade I listed building would sustain or enhance the significance of the heritage asset.
4. Statutory Consultations
Dorchester Town Council 4.1 No objection.
Historic England 4.2 Shire Hall is a Grade I listed building that is significant, not only for its architectural quality and historic fabric, but also for its associative value as the place where the Tolpuddle Martyrs were sentenced in 1834 and through this an association with labour history both locally nationally. Alongside this Thomas Hardy, served in the building as a Justice of the peace and Grand Juror at the Assizes. The history of the Shire Hall as a place of public justice extends well into the C20, being the location of the Crown Court until 1955, and as such the place has a high communal value.
The building was designed by the architect Thomas Hardwick in 1797. Its front elevation is of impressive three-bay, two-storey form, constructed of ashlar Portland stone. While the building has undergone a number of alterations, including extensive phases of alterations in the 1889 and the 1960's, a substantial amount of historical fabric survives, and earlier plan forms are still recognisable. These include the hugely important and intact Crown Court Room and Grand Jury Room, as well as various phases of cells within the basement.
Whilst the western half of the basement is much altered and is therefore undergoing conversion to reception/ shop/ sanitary facilities, the eastern half of the basement contains highly significant historic fabric and remains relatively intact - both Georgian and Victorian cells, along with the room where it is thought that the Tolpuddle Martyrs were held, an area of considerable communal and historic value. Access from this area to the court room is via a narrow, timber spiral staircase in the centre of the building.
The current proposals seek to create a route through the building to enable visitors to experience the historic, confined and claustrophobic spaces and thereby to understand the conditions encountered by the Martyrs and other inmates over the centuries. The plan submitted illustrates that virtually all areas within the basement will be accessible to the public and that routes through the space have been carefully considered to ensure safe and efficient access.
Page 104 This application seeks to remove a single door and door frame from the corridor between the Georgian cells and the lobby at the base of the stairs to the courtroom in order to facilitate wheelchair access. The door is assessed within the application to be of high heritage value and retains its heavy lock and chain - it is plain to see that it would have formed a sturdy barrier when the cells were in use.
Historic England has worked with the team developing this building for some years now and supports the aims and aspirations of the project, however we are concerned that should this highly significant element in the legibility of the history of this building be hung on a wall, it would lose its context, function and therefore much of its value. Whilst we generally support the provision of full accessibility within historic buildings, there are often other important factors which must be considered in the decision making process. We are therefore not convinced that the alternatives outlined within the application or the route through the building previously agreed could not form a workable solution. As a consequence we support the Conservation Officer in his suggestion that a finite trial period is undertaken with the door left in situ, after which the findings can be assessed and the options regarding the sustainability of alternatives reconsidered.
Recommendation Historic England has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. We consider that the issues and safeguards outlined in our advice need to be addressed in order for the application to meet the requirements of paragraph 132 of the NPPF.
Officer's note: the proposal has been revised so that the door will no longer be removed. It is now proposed that the frame and door will remain insitu, with the frame to be hinged to the wall to allow a wider opening for disabled access. Historic England are supportive of this approach
Historic England comment 30th Jan 2018: "The proposal sounds like an interesting, creative solution to the problem and I am content that the door is hinged on the opposite side. I am content to leave the further discussions regarding the door to David"
5. Other consultations 5.1 Conservation Officer-
This application sets out the proposal to remove an historic door and frame and then fix both to a nearby wall using mirror brackets. I have been involved in this building and the proposals to restore and assist in revealing its history and to interrupt how the building worked / functioned for many years now. With such an original and complete building which has changed so little since it was built and with such a strong and direct link to Dorset's people/ agriculture and the way the law was misused to deport farm workers is a fascinating piece of history which perhaps still impacts on us today.
This historic door and frame was always known to provide a narrow access through this area and I understand the limitations it provides for wheel chair users [who will have the option of using a narrow chair ].
Page 105 The door [and frame] is a stout barrier and a security measure when the cells were in use, it is a working door with its fittings and chains and quite possibly unique. In its current position it has purpose / reason / use / function / context and links to the fittings and it is the door - that many poor souls have passed through. Relocation the door [even if close by] seems to me to demean the door to be little more than an artifact hung on a wall .
For these reasons and based on this logic I find it difficult to agree to the proposals, I do understand the access issues but the reality is that there is an alternative which allows the door and frame to remain in place and I would suggest that both the door and frame be left in place and that after say 18 months of the building being open to the public this issue be reconsidered as it may well be that the alternative of using a narrow wheel chair is a workable solution .
Officer's note: the proposal has been revised so that the door will no longer be removed. It is now proposed that the frame and door will remain insitu, with the frame to be hinged to the wall to allow a wider opening for disabled access. The Conservation Officer is supportive of this approach
Conservation Officer Comment 30 January 2018: ... Regarding Door DB10 which we discussed at our extended site meeting . I know that we feel uncomfortable about altering this door and frame so the object must be to minimize damage and retain relevance . To hinge the left hand frame ( viewed from the stair side) seems to me to be a very good idea , we retain the door in its current working position and the hinged frame section can hinge back into place leaving the complete door and frame (but having the frame cut in two places) . This seems to me to allow access , minimize damage and retain door and frame essentially in the same configuration
The added benefit seems to me that we can reveal the lower section of the stone stairs to the Pillar Room , thus revealing a little more of the buildings history . What information do you have on these stairs , does Phillip have a view on when they were built ? would they have been later ? and how historically would security have been dealt with here by another secure door ? . In my opinion it would be wise to reveal part of the lower section of stairs but no more apart from making the recess safe etc. In forming a chamfer to the wall this will be brickwork I think , which should be easier than stone .
Thanks for your input (and Phillip) it does seem to me that you have found what is in my opinion an acceptable solution that achieves the objective and minimizes damage
6. Other representations 6.1 There were no third party representations. 6.2 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
Page 106 8. Relevant Planning History
App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer 1/D/12/001426 LBC Internal alterations and intruder A 24 JC alarm January 2013 1/E/87/000412 LBC Erect bronze plaque R 01 January 1900 1/E/88/000461 LBC Erect plaque A 27 July JG 1988 1/E/88/000462 FUL Erect plaque A 21 July JG 1988 1/E/91/000298 DIS Make internal and external A 10 July JG alterations 1991 1/E/91/000299 LBC Remove corrugated lean-to roofed A 29 August JG lobby, make internal and external 1991 alterations WD/D/14/000197 FUL Change of use of part of the A 09 DH existing office accommodation into February 9 dwelling houses and 1 flat 2015 WD/D/14/000217 LBC Change of use of part of the A 09 DH existing office accommodation into February 9 dwelling houses and 1 flat 2015 WD/D/14/000850 FUL Erect 4 new dwellings A 04 DH February 2015 WD/D/14/000861 FUL Change of use of the Old Shire A 08 August DH Hall to a museum/visitor attraction 2014 and formation of two residential units WD/D/14/000863 LBC Internal re-modelling (see form) to A 08 August DH accommodate the change of use 2014 of the building to a museum/visitor attraction and two residential units WD/D/15/000999 COU Change of use from office (B1) to UND 20 July DH residential (C3) 2015 WD/D/15/000999 NON Change of use from office (B1) to ALW 08 April DH (Appeal) residential (C3) 2016 WD/D/15/002979 LBC Revised proposal of the internal A 19 JMC remodelling of: the western third of Septembe the building regarding the ticketing r 2016 area and shop, the sanitary facilities, the staff/volunteer area and the cafe/servery above that and TIC area. Some amendments to doors. Improvements for: fire escape and protection, sound insulation, ventilation and heating, provision of water, gas, power, data and storage provision, access for maintenance. Amendments to previously proposed fire protection in rooflights to retain the character of the rooflights and the spaces they light. Works to enhance significance.
Page 107 WD/D/16/002151 LBC Create a new opening into an A 30 CH existing wall to create a door Novembe giving access to a bathroom in r 2016 Unit 16. WD/D/16/002228 CWC Request for confirmation of 23 DH compliance with condition 3 of February planning approval 2017 WD/D/14/000861 WD/D/16/002254 CWC Request for confirmation of 24 DH compliance with condition 4 of February planning approval 2017 WD/D/14/000861 WD/D/17/000863 CWC Request for confirmation of 03 May HML compliance of condition 3 of 2017 planning approval WD/D/15/002979 WD/D/17/000865 CWC Request for confirmation of 03 May HML compliance with condition 1 of 2017 planning approval reference WD/14/000863 WD/D/17/001704 NMA Amendment to Planning DEL CHW Permission WD/D/14/000861 - to surface the strip of land at the Eastern part of the site with hardstanding WD/D/17/002197 LBC Alterations to the following areas A 18 Jan CHW previously granted consent: - 2018 Change configuration and use of staff/ volunteer room to become store room. - Change use of TIC room to become staff/ volunteer room. - Change use of AV store to staff kitchen. - Proposed retention and adaptation of existing rear metal stair and walkway. - Change in configuration of the plan of the apartments on the 2nd floor. - Changes to doors DPG20, DF10 and DPLG5. - Replacement of glass panes at low level in ground floor rooms. - Replacement of existing secondary glazing with new secondary glazing in the Grand Jury Room. Add partition wall in lobby on upper ground floor.
WD/D/17/002206 FUL Install external signage and UNK incorporate lighting into the pavement of High West St to light the facade. WD/D/17/002207 LBC UNK WD/D/17/002355 LBC Internal exhibition installation with A 18 Jan CHW associated display and signage 2018 WD/D/17/002838 ADV 2 no. Hanging signs from facade UNK of the building, a lettering fascia above the main door saying 'Shire Hall' and a sign beside the door noting opening times
Page 108 9. The Development Plan
The West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) ENV4 Heritage Assets
10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 N/A
11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 N/A
12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment 12.2 Dorchester Conservation Area Appraisals
13. Planning issues Whether the replacement of the internal door in the grade II listed building would sustain or enhance the significance of the heritage asset
13.1 There main issue was whether relocating the historic door and frame to allow disabled wheelchair access devalued the significance of the historic asset and resulted in unacceptable harm.
13.2 Both the Conservation Officer and Historic England were in agreement that if the door is relocated it would lose its context, function and therefore much of its value.
13.3 Further to these concerns raised by Historic England and the Conservation Officer, the proposal has been revised so that the door will no longer be removed. It is now proposed that the frame and door will remain insitu, the clear opening of the doorway will be increased by: a) hinging the lower half of the opening side door frame & b) allowing the door to open wide by removing a later wall (believed to be mid to late 20th century in date) that was added to close off a former stone stair that accessed the adjacent toom (the 'Pillar Room')
The upper frame has already been previously cut for pipework so there is no impact to the historic door in this regard. The result is that the wider access to assist wheel chair users.
The removal of the wall will also allow greater interpretation of the building. The stone stairs concealed behind this wall are believed to date from 1797 (when the current court house was constructed). After the wall is removed the stairs will remain exposed for visitors to see.
Page 109 14. Summary 14.1 The revised scheme is considered to be acceptable as it protects the significance of the heritage asset, in accordance with adopted local plan policy ENV4 and advice contained within the NPPF.
15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve subject to conditions. i. Plans The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Location Plan dated 24-04-17 Existing Plan and Elevation of Door DB10 - Drawing Number 358_041 dated Feb 2018 Proposed Plan and Elevation of Door DB10 - Drawing Number 358_042 dated Feb 2018 Door jam as existing, Door jam as proposed, Door jam opened for wheelchair access - Drawing Number 358_043 dated Feb 2018
REASON: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. ii. Time The work to which it relates must be begun no later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date on which the consent is granted.
REASON: This condition is required to be imposed by reason of Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended).
Page 110 Agenda Item 10
Planning Committee 15 February, 2018 WD/D/16/000691
Application Number: WD/D/16/000691 Full
Registration Date: 29 April, 2016
Application Site: VALUE HOUSE STORES, MANDEVILLE ROAD, WYKE REGIS, WEYMOUTH, DT4 9HW
Proposal: The demolition of exsiting buildings and the erection of 37 No. dwellings with associated works, including garages, parking, landscaping, open space, footpath links and junction improvements at the junction of Mandeville Road and Camp Road
Applicant: Abbey Manor Developments
Ward Members: Cllr T Bartlett, Cllr I Gardner, Cllr J Dunseith
Case Officer: Jean Marshall
1 SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION 1.1 For Members to agree the revised wording proposed for conditions 9-12 as set out in this report.
2 PROPOSAL
2.1 Members may recall that Committee resolved to grant planning permission for the above development at their Committee meeting in December 2016 having delegated the decision to issue a planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement as regards 35% affordable housing and subject to conditions. A copy of the original Committee report is appended to this report.
2.2 The Section 106 Agreement has been concluded but the applicants have requested amendments to the wording of conditions 9-12 and hence as there are no delegated powers for officers to alter such wording the application is being reported back to your Committee for decision.
2.3 The applicant has said the draft conditions 9-12 present them with a dilemma as follows:
"The description of development includes the demolition of the existing buildings and therefore the demolition would be a commencement of development, however conditions 9,10,11 and 12 are all pre commencement condition. We have already carried out the desk top study (condition 9) and have been advised by our consultant that a more detailed study is required which will require the demolition of the buildings in order to test the ground under the buildings. So in order to satisfy
Page 111 condition 10, we need to commence development. Could we change the preface to these conditions (10, 11 and 12) by “before the commencement of development other than the demolition of buildings etc…”.
2.4 The proposals would essentially means that conditions 9-12 would now read as follows:
9 Before the commencement of development, other than the demolition of buildings the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority: (a) a 'desk study' report documenting the site history; (b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site, and incorporating a ‘conceptual model’ of all potential pollutant linkages, detailing the identified sources, pathways and receptors and basis of risk assessment; (c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed; (d) a detailed phasing scheme for the development and remedial works. The remediation scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented before the development is occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall provide written confirmation that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure that risks from soil contamination to the future occupants of the development and neighbouring occupiers are minimised, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
10 Before the commencement of development other than the demolition of buildings, a further investigation and risk assessment shall be completed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. The investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed, including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes), adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, archaeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
Page 112 11 Before the commencement of development other than the demolition of buildings, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
12 Before the commencement of development other than the demolition of buildings, the approved remediation scheme shall be carried out unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
3 Recommendation – That Members agree the amended wording of conditions 9-12 as set out above
Report Author : Jean Marshall Head of Planning Development Management and Building Control.
Page 113 Appendix – Original Dec 2016 Cttee Report
Planning Committee 8 December, 2016 WD/D/16/000691
Application Number: WD/D/16/000691 Full
Registration Date: 29 April, 2016
Application Site: VALUE HOUSE STORES, MANDEVILLE ROAD, WYKE REGIS, WEYMOUTH, DT4 9HW
Proposal: The demolition of exsiting buildings and the erection of 37 No. dwellings with associated works, including garages, parking, landscaping, open space, footpath links and junction improvements at the junction of Mandeville Road and Camp Road
Applicant: Abbey Manor Developments
Ward Members: Cllr T Bartlett, Cllr I Gardner, Cllr J Dunseith
Case Officer: Darren Rogers
1. SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION
1.1 Delegate authority to the Head of Planning (Development Management & Building Control) to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement as regards 35% affordable housing and subject to conditions.
2. PROPOSAL
2.1 Site Location - This application relates to the former Normans Supermarket site now known as Value House which is located to the south of Chickerell on the outskirts of the adjoining Weymouth and Portland conurbation. The site is accessed at the end of Mandeville Road, which is characterised by residential accommodation on the eastern side beyond which to the north is open land and on the western side is the large M.O.D. Tented Camp Site.
2.2 The application site comprises 1.8 hectares containing approximately 3,621m² of large unrestricted retail buildings and approximately 150 parking spaces. The current buildings have been in use since before 1959 and have been re-clad in more recent years. Adjoining the main building is a paddock area. There is also a dwelling at the site entrance. The site's appearance is one of a typical industrial / commercial type structure. Buildings, whilst single storey, are typically warehouse in size incorporating pitched roofs and flat roof structures. There are views of the southern
Page 114 coastline from the application site, which occupies a prominent location in the landscape.
2.3 The site is bound on 3 sides by field hedgerows, and there are public rights of way that surround the site and which radiate out to the surrounding coastal and urban areas. The site is outside of the Defined Development Boundary for Chickerell, but lies within a Defined Heritage Coast. Lying nearby further to the northwest of the site lies the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and Site of National Importance for Nature Conservation (beyond Littlesea Holiday Park).
2.4 The Proposal - This detailed application proposes the erection of 37 No. dwellings and associated works, including garages, parking, landscaping and open space. The applicant states that “This proposal provides an opportunity to re-develop the site for a residential use with well designed buildings of much lower scale and massing and more landscaping and amenity areas, reducing the existing harm to the landscape and achieving a positive enhancement to the character and setting of the Heritage Coast”.
2.5 In addition they add that “In addition to the landscape benefits, the removal of the existing unfettered retail use of the site will bring significant benefits to the character and amenities of the surrounding area, with significant highway advantages due to the lower level of traffic generation”.
2.6 They go on to say that “The proposed development will also make a valuable contribution towards the supply of deliverable housing sites within the District. The recent Local Plan Inspector’s report considers that the extent of the housing supply within the District is marginal in terms of meeting the 5 years required by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). On this basis the Inspector’s Report advises … “I consider it is imperative that the Councils do not ignore new opportunities which come forward in sustainable locations and are consistent with other policy provisions”. It therefore follows that the principle of housing development on the application site, which would deliver significant social, economic and environmental benefits, should be supported in accordance with the presumption in favour of sustainable development established by the NPPF”.
2.7 The application is supported by a Design & Access statement, an ecological survey/Bio Diversity Mitigation Plan, a Transport Statement, a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment, a flood risk assessment, Statement of Community Involvement and a ground report.
2.8 Extensive pre-application discussions have been held with the Local Planning Authority, County Highway Authority and other key stakeholders including Chickerell Town Council, Wyke Regis Community Association and the local community.
The total proposed housing mix is set out as follows:
2 bed houses = 7; 3 bed house = 21; 4 bed house = 9.
Page 115 2.9 13 No. affordable houses are proposed (35%) at plots 1 – 13 in the south east corner of the site. The affordability and availability of the affordable housing will be secured by S.106 agreement. It is expected that affordable housing tenure would be 70% rented and 30% intermediate. The affordable housing mix is set out below:
2 bed house (77.4 m2) = 6 3 bed house (82.4 m2) = 7
2.10 Due to significant parts of the site being set aside for landscape mitigation and open space the proposal has a low overall density of 23 dwellings per hectare, which the applicant considers is appropriate given the landscape sensitivity of the setting.
2.11 As originally submitted the proposal also proposed a scheme for minor enhancement of the junction of Mandeville Road/Camp Road in order to maximise highway safety. This however is no longer a requirement of the County Council – see highways comments below.
3 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
App. No Type Proposal Decision Date Officer 1/D/13/001381 COU Change of use of former garden A 12 February BB centre (A1 retail) to Auction 2014 House (Sui Generis) for a period of 3 years (Retrospective) 1/E/03/001760 FUL Erect 48No residential units to CF 11 November DJR include 22 houses and 26 flats, & 2004 modify existing vehicular & pedestrian access. 1/E/03/001760 NON Erect 48No residential units to DIS 11 November DJR (Appeal) include 22 houses and 26 flats, & 2004 modify existing vehicular & pedestrian access. 1/E/06/001832 FUL Clad north east and part north A 25 October JL west and south east elevations in 2006 horizontal timber boarding (retrospective) 1/E/98/000015 CLE Application for a Certificate of A 29 June AM Lawfulness for an existing use - 1998 retail sale of goods (other than hot food) to members of the public i.e. within Class A1 1/E/99/000203 OUT Develop land for residential R 02 BB purposes with associated roads September and sewers. Construct new 1999 vehicular and pedestrian access
Page 116 4 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
The adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan 2015
4.1 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 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
ENV13. ACHIEVING HIGH LEVELS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PERFORMANCE
ENV15. EFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE USE OF LAND
ENV16. AMENITY
SUS1. THE LEVEL OF ECONOMIC AND HOUSING GROWTH
SUS2. DISTRIBUTION OF DEVELOPMENT
SUS4. THE REPLACEMENT OF BUILDINGS OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
ECON3. PROTECTION OF OTHER EMPLOYMENT SITES
HOUS1. AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HOUS3. OPEN MARKET HOUSING MIX
HOUS6. OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE DEFINED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES
COM1. MAKING SURE NEW DEVELOPMENT MAKES SUITABLE PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
COM7. CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK
Page 117 COM9. PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT
COM10. THE PROVISION OF UTILITIES SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
COM11. RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT
National Planning Policy Framework
4.2 The national advice in para. 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012 (NPPF) indicates a presumption in favour of sustainable development. In terms of decision-taking this means:
· approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay; and
· where the development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out of date, grant permission unless:
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.
4.3 Para 49 - The NPPF indicates that housing applications should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The NPPF also states that there is a need to deliver a wide choice of high quality homes, widen opportunities for home ownership and create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. It suggests that Planning Authorities should also consider resisting inappropriate development of residential gardens, for example where development would cause harm to the local area.
4.4 Para 47 - The NPPF indicates that to boost the supply of housing local planning authorities should identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites sufficient to provide five years worth of housing against their housing requirements. Para 49 also indicates that relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up-to-date if a five-year supply of deliverable housing sites cannot be demonstrated.
4.5 With regard to design, the NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment and indicates that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, which is indivisible from good planning and contributing positively to making places better for people. It further advises the importance of achieving high quality and inclusive design, but suggests that planning decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes or stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It does however consider it proper to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness. It does consider visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings to be very important factors, but suggests that securing high quality and inclusive design goes beyond aesthetic considerations. Consequently it says that planning decisions should address the connections between people and places and
Page 118 the integration of new development into the natural, built and historic environment.
4.6 In determining applications, it says that great weight should be given to outstanding or innovative designs that help raise the standard of design more generally in the area. Furthermore that permission should be refused for development having poor design which fails to take opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. However permission should not be refused for buildings or infrastructure that promote high levels of sustainability because of concerns about incompatibility with the existing townscape, if those concerns have been mitigated by good design (unless the concern relates to a designated heritage asset and the impact would cause material harm to the asset or its setting which is not outweighed by the proposal’s economic, social and environmental benefits).
4.7 In terms of conserving and enhancing the natural environment the NPPF says that planning should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils; recognise the wider benefits of ecosystem services; minimise impacts on biodiversity and provide net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity. The aim is to prevent both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability; and to remediate or mitigate; despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. The primary objective remains to conserve or enhance biodiversity and to encourage opportunities to incorporate biodiversity in and around developments.
4.8 In terms of decision taking the following are also relevant-
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.
4.9 Paragraph 18 of the NPPF outlines how the Government is committed to securing economic growth in order to create jobs and prosperity, building on the country’s inherent strengths and to meet the challenge of competition.
4.10 Finally paras 203 and 204 of the NPPF indicates that Local Planning Authorities should consider whether otherwise unacceptable development could be made acceptable through the use of conditions or planning obligations.
4.11 The above sections can be found in
Page 119 Section Subject
1. Building a strong, competitive economy
4. Promoting sustainable transport
6. Delivering a wide choice of high quality homes
7. Requiring good design
11. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
12. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
SPGs
4.12 Design & Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines (2009)
West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009
4.13 The site is within the South Dorset Ridge & Vale Landscape Type
Local Financial Considerations
4.14 Having regard to S70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act the proposal does have local finance considerations.
Community Infrastructure Levy
4.15 The adopted charging schedule only applies a levy on proposals that create a dwelling and/or a dwelling with restricted holiday use. All other development types are therefore set a £0 per square metre CIL rate.
4.16 The development proposal is CIL liable. The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sqm. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development.
5 CONSULTATIONS
5.1 Natural England
The development site lies within the setting of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a designation of national importance with the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. The proposal also lies within the Dorset Heritage Coast. In this case Natural England requests that the Dorset AONB Team is fully consulted over any implications of the application to the designated landscape of the AONB. Any decision should take full account the AONB Team's advice and give the necessary weight to the relevant Dorset AONB Management Plan policies. Provided the
Page 120 Dorset AONB Team is satisfied that the proposals will not harm the protected landscape of the Dorset AONB then Natural England has no further comment on the proposals.
The protection afforded to the Heritage Coast from development that would harm its character, special qualities or natural beauty is set out in Local Plan Policy ENV.1. Your authority should also be mindful of the paragraph 114 for the National Planning Policy Framework whish states local planning authorities should:
"maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes, particularly in areas defined as Heritage Coast, and improve public access to and enjoyment of the coast."
5.2 Dorset County Council Nature Conservation Officer
A certificate of approval of the applicants Biodiversity Mitigation Plans has already been granted.
5.3 Dorset County Council - Highways Authority
Following receipt of revised drawings and information from the Applicant’s consultants are have to confirm that the County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition :-
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access road and highway layout, parking and turning areas shown on Drawing Number 3527/002 RevD have been constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety.
Informative Note: The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
Note to planning officer – The Transport Statement included the signage and marking changes to the Camp Road/Mandeville Road Junction and these are not considered to be acceptable by the County Highway Authority but since the proposals will not increase traffic generation there is no requirement or justification for improvements/enhancements.
5.4 Dorset County Council – Rights of way Team
No objection to the proposed development, as shown in the plans
Page 121 accompanying the application. However, throughout the duration of the development the full width of the public footpaths must remain open and available to the public, with no materials or vehicles stored on the route.
They have contacted the agent regarding the proposed legal status of the proposed footpath links shown on the submitted site plan for clarification of their future status. If it is proposed that these routes are to have public rights (eg footpath), then Dorset County Council must be consulted with regards to their width and surface prior to their installation.
On the attached plan, 2 sections have been highlighted orange, and following investigations by the Definitive Map team of Dorset County Council, it is likely that these portions of the footpaths are incorrectly recorded, and as such this should be subject to a Definitive Map Modification Order (DMMO), this is highlighted on the accompanying plan. Please contact Phil Hobson, Senior Definitive Map Officer to seek specific advice, regarding this path.
5.5 Chickerell Town Council
Chickerell Town Council members recommend refusal of the application on the grounds of "loss of amenity, loss of employment, adverse effect on Jurassic coast view and the design does not fit in with surroundings".
6. NON STATUTORY CONSULTATIONS
6.1 DCC AONB Team
I have reviewed the plans and consider it unlikely that the proposals would produce a significant impact on the designated area, or on the key view into the AONB from Portland Heights. Although the site occupies an elevated location on the periphery of Wyke Regis, the following factors reduce the magnitude of change that would arise:
• The site is 2km from the AONB boundary, to the northwest. However, as indicated by the landscape assessment, visibility of the development will not affect publically accessible views until greater distances, from higher ground. • The brownfield status of the site should be recognised within the visual baseline. The ability to discern changes in the baseline over the distances involved is likely to be limited, considering the modest apparent increase in scale and mass that will occur. • The development will commonly be seen in the context of wider built environment. In particular, when seen from elevated land within the AONB, the site tends seen in association with development at locations including the holiday park at Littlesea, Lanehouse, Camp Road and Fortuneswell.
Notwithstanding the above observations I would recommend that two measures are pursued in order to minimise the visual impact of the development. Firstly, light and reflective finishes should be avoided. Consequently, it would be prudent to dull down the proposed light coloured render and utilise antireflective finishes to glazing. Secondly, ongoing
Page 122 maintenance of the proposed landscaping scheme is required, particularly because the location is exposed and this factor appears to have limited the growth of existing vegetation.
6.2 WDDC Landscape Officer
In summary, although the existing planting provides a degree of enclosure (on the north-west and north-east borders in particular), it should not be relied upon to screen development on site, as it’s shallow depth – only one or two trees deep - means it’s vulnerable to loss through disease or other depredation. The northernmost point of the site (where there are four dwellings proposed close to the boundary with footpath S15/32) would be particularly sensitive to change as the limited garden depth would tend to mitigate against further or replacement planting.
With regard to the more open south-west aspect, the Landscape Masterplan by Arden Landscape Design (MAND/LAN/01) outlines a suitable approach for planting on this more open flank, where successful establishment would depend, largely, on the creation of a matrix of salt-tolerant species within which larger-growing species could establish. Again, it should be noted that this area of planting would be unlikely to achieve the heights suggested in the illustrative sections
6.3 WDDC Urban Design Officer
A number of iterations of the scheme were developed through the pre-application process and the current submitted layout is acceptable. Development is predominantly contained within the areas of existing buildings apart from the north west corner that is currently car parking. Here the proposed development is less dense and would be screened by existing and proposed planting. The scheme is arranged with perimeter blocks in the centre and to the north east and a small private drive serving 4 properties in the northern corner. This creates positive outward facing frontages onto the streets, open space and landscaped areas providing a good level of activity and natural surveillance. Rear garden fences face part of the north western boundary however these will be screened by planting.
Built form in the vicinity of the site is a mix of mid to late 20th century housing reflecting the layout and design of the period in which they were built. There is a mix of bungalows and two storey development, predominantly shallow pitched or hipped roofs with chimneys but with some butterfly roofed 1960’s housing off Barrow Rise. The layouts are generally suburban in character with relatively generous front gardens and green verges & hedges. Frontages are bounded by low walls and hedges and materials include brick, stone, render & cladding, under concrete or clay tiled roofs. The proposed layout proposes low boundary walls to frontages and areas of open space, and landscaping including hedging which are consistent with development in the vicinity.
The heights of the dwellings are generally below that of the existing buildings
Page 123 but there will be a greater spread of development across the site. Most are 6m high but some extend to 7m. The flat roofed nature of the design means that the full bulk of the unit will extend further up than the eaves level on a more traditional pitched roofed dwelling although the overall height would be slightly lower.
Given that the character of heritage coast is essentially open and undeveloped, albeit acknowledging that there are existing buildings on the site the aim should be to reduce the dominance of the development within the landscape. Therefore it would be preferable for materials and colours used to appear as recessive and natural as possible, muted colours perhaps a grey or similar render rather than stark white or cream and timber cladding that will silver with time. A sensitive lighting scheme would also help to reduce the impact at night
7 REPRESENTATIONS
7.1 There have been 16 individual representations. Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com. The material issues raised are:
Objections: · Highways problems at the Mandeville Rd/Camp Road junction. · Inadequate access at Camp Road/Lane house Rocks Road junction · Infrastructure off site (doctors/schools/hospitals) are already overflowing – this will make matters worse · No nearby shops so cars will be used · Loss of employment · Disturbance of wildlife · No nearby bus service · House designs akin to World War II houses · House designs out of place in this rural Jurassic Coast / World Heritage location · Exacerbation of traffic problems nearby and could allow for extra housing being provided on nearby land · Value House is a local asset · Previous reason for refusal given in 2003/4 remain applicable today. Support 2 letters of support – one from the occupiers of Value House who believe that the environment will be greatly enhanced to the benefit of the local community. The negative impacts of our trading – delivery lorries, customer access and parking on the entrance roads particularly at weekends,
Page 124 the general noise of commercial activities, waste management and intrusion from our site lighting arrays – are very significant. We have routinely attempted to mitigate these effects and be "good neighbours", however the nature of our business makes this impossible to achieve. The alternative proposals will significantly reduce these and be far more compatible with the general character of the area The other points out that the impending closure of the existing retail use highlights the unsuitability of the site and its worn-out buildings for continued retail use. We strongly support the application. The footpath link from Cockles Lane to Mandeville Road will usefully add to the footpath network. The landscaping proposals look excellent but it is important that the Management Company fully implements and maintains the tree and hedge planting shown. The boundary hedges are currently seriously degraded. The nearby 70s / 80s housing development at Vanguard Avenue / St Patricks Ave and Viscount Road resulted in the loss of ancient hedges to part of Cockles Lane and it is important that the integrity of the hedged, former cattle drove of Cockles Lane is protected from further erosion.
8 PLANNING ISSUES
8.1 The main planning issues relevant to this application are:
· Policy; · Design; · Highways; · Landscape; · Amenity; · Ecology; · Affordable Housing · Loss of employment site
8.2 Policy - With reference to Policy SUS 2, the site is outside the defined development boundary of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan. Members will recall that 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 well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period.”
8.3 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
Page 125 provisions”.
8.4 Monitoring for 2015/16 shows that the housing land supply has now slipped below 5 years to 4.9 years. 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.
8.5 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 a brownfield site and thus is supported by Core Principle para 17 of the NPPF and para 111 which asks LPA’s to:
encourage the effective use of land by reusing land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value;
8.6 It is not considered that Value House is of high environmental value.
8.7 In summary the proposal in principle is considered acceptable in Housing Land Supply terms and given that Para 14 of the NPPF is engaged, indicating that in such cases planning permission should be granted consideration needs to be given as to whether :
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.
8.8 The material planning issues are addressed below along with the planning balance.
Page 126 8.9 Design - The applicant points out that proposed layout, buildings and spaces have been designed as a direct response to the characteristics of the site, and its constraints and opportunities. In particular the landscape sensitivity of the site has been a key factor in determining an appropriate distribution of built form across the site,scale and massing of the buildings, architecture, materials and landscape design. It considered that the development will integrate successfully into its natural setting, delivering significant improvements to the local landscape in accordance with Local Plan Policy ENV10.
8.10 The proposed layout achieves a strong sense of enclosure on arrival to the site where the street scene is dominated by buildings with their principal elevations facing the public domain. The pattern of buildings and spaces is more fragmented in those visually conspicuous parts of the site further north and west. These different characteristics provide a high level of legibility, rather than a standard approach throughout.
8.11 It was identified at an early stage that the unique characteristics of the site, and the lack of local architectural/design cues, justify a detailed design approach with its own distinct character. As a result the proposed buildings are of a bespoke and contemporary architecture. Importantly this design approach has helped assist the integration of the proposal into the scale of the buildings and their cumulative massing from distant views. The proposed buildings are well articulated possessing a distinctive character throughout. High quality materials are proposed of a tone and texture that will blend withthe landscape.
8.12 The buildings will possess high levels of insulation and will comply with the necessary Building Regulations in terms of their environmental performance. The orientation of the site and design of the buildings (incorporating flat roofs hidden by parapets) is ideal for photovoltaic and solar panels to provide renewable energy.
8.13 Your Urban Design officer comments on the layout design that
“a number of iterations of the scheme were developed through the pre-application process and the current submitted layout is acceptable. Development is predominantly contained within the areas of existing buildings apart from the north west corner that is currently car parking. Here the proposed development is less dense and would be screened by existing and proposed planting. The scheme is arranged with perimeter blocks in the centre and to the north east and a small private drive serving 4 properties in the northern corner. This creates positive outward facing frontages onto the streets, open space and landscaped areas providing a good level of activity and natural surveillance. Rear garden fences face part of the north western boundary however these will be screened by planting.
Built form in the vicinity of the site is a mix of mid to late 20th century housing reflecting the layout and design of the period in which they were built. There
Page 127 is a mix of bungalows and two storey development, predominantly shallow pitched or hipped roofs with chimneys but with some butterfly roofed 1960’s housing off Barrow Rise. The layouts are generally suburban in character with relatively generous front gardens and green verges & hedges. Frontages are bounded by low walls and hedges and materials include brick, stone, render & cladding, under concrete or clay tiled roofs. The proposed layout proposes low boundary walls to frontages and areas of open space, and landscaping including hedging which are consistent with development in the vicinity.
The heights of the dwellings are generally below that of the existing buildings but there will be a greater spread of development across the site. Most are 6m high but some extend to 7m. The flat roofed nature of the design means that the full bulk of the unit will extend further up than the eaves level on a more traditional pitched roofed dwelling although the overall height would be slightly lower.
Given that the character of heritage coast is essentially open and undeveloped, albeit acknowledging the there are existing buildings on the site the aim should be to reduce the dominance of the development within the landscape. Therefore it would be preferable for materials and colours used to appear as recessive and natural as possible, muted colours perhaps a grey or similar render rather than stark white or cream and timber cladding that will silver with time. A sensitive lighting scheme would also help to reduce the impact at night”.
8.14 Having regard to the above, the proposed development complies with Local Plan policies ENV10, ENV11, ENV12 and ENV13 and paragraphs 56 and 60 of the NPPF. Members should note that in respect of design the NPPF at paras 56 and 57 states:
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.
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.
8.15 And Para 60 states;
60. Planning policies and decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes and they should not stifle innovation, originality or initiative through unsubstantiated requirements to conform to certain development forms or styles. It is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness.
8.16 As regards promoting or reinforcing local distinctiveness there is no such
Page 128 locally distinctive characteristic of neighbouring dwellings that one would seek to replicate in this immediate local area.
8.17 Highways - The applicants supporting Transport Statement provides clear justification for the proposed development on highways grounds. As a result of the pre-application consultation undertaken, the concerns of the local community with regard to the safety and capacity of the local highway network have been noted by the applicant. However, from their traffic surveys and TRICS analysis undertaken, the Transport Statement demonstrates that the proposed residential development will generate significantly less traffic than the current retail use of the site. On this basis the proposal will improve highway safety and the capacity of the local highway network.
8.18 As originally submitted the proposal also proposed a scheme for minor enhancement of the junction of Mandeville Road/Camp Road in order to maximise highway safety. This however is no longer a requirement of the County Council. They state “The Transport Statement included the signage and marking changes to the Camp Road/Mandeville Road Junction and these are not considered to be acceptable by the County Highway Authority but since the proposals will not increase traffic generation there is no requirement or justification for improvements/enhancements”
8.19 Footpath links through the site connecting to the existing footpath network are also proposed in accordance with Local Plan Policy COM7.
8.20 In terms of accessibility, the accompanying Transport Statement has demonstrated that there are a variety of safe, reasonable and realistic modes of travel that could be adopted by residents to access every day services. It should be noted that local services within 8 minutes walking distance would form part of a “walkable neighbourhood”, as defined by latest guidance within Manual for Streets (which refers to services within 10 minutes walking distance). It should also be noted that the NPPF definition of “sustainable development” adopts a broad approach, requiring assessment of the economic, social and environmental roles of a proposal, rather than just its location
8.21 The proposed level of on-site car parking provision is considered compliant with Policy COM9.
8.22 Landscape - In terms of landscape impact development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from and, where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character. Your policy also advises that proposals which conserve, enhance and restore locally distinctive landscape features are encouraged. In addition, where proposals relate to sites where existing development is of visually poor quality, it suggests that opportunities should be taken to secure visual enhancements. However any development that significantly adversely affects the character or visual quality of the local landscape should not be permitted. Consequently it is important that proposals look at appropriate measures to moderate the adverse effects of development on the landscape.
Page 129 8.23 The applicant has submitted a Landscape Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) and your landscape officers as well as those of the DCC AONB team have been consulted.
8.24 The LVIA concludes that :
· Site is an established brownfield site located within a visually degraded setting within the Heritage Coast. The Site benefits from established vegetative screening around three of its four boundaries. The Site is generally well-screened from the South West Coast Path – although there are close-range views from a small number of rights of way in close proximity to the Site. The existing built development within the Site has an awkward relationship with the adjacent land-uses in that the buildings are of a much larger scale than the nearby residential estates/military structures – breaking the skyline where the ridge heights attain 8-9m.
· There would be much scope to enhance the visual appearance of the Site with a sympathetic re-development approach that could combine well-designed architectural elements with a sensitive integral landscaping scheme …
8.25 The detailed landscape assessment within the LVIA has influenced the detailed design proposals, which have evolved through a number of revisions following discussions with the LPA. The applicant considers that the final proposals achieve landscape enhancements over and above the existing buildings and uses, as explained below:
· Particular attention has been paid to the proximity of buildings to the most visually sensitive south east and south west boundaries. Extensive areas of open space and strategic landscaping are proposed in these prominent locations; · Great care has also been taken to ensure that the scale and massing of the proposed residential buildings is less than that of the existing commercial buildings. The contemporary architecture is characterised by flat and mono-pitch roofs thereby reducing the height of buildings, and providing an overall massing with a horizontal emphasis that sits low in the landscape; · The positioning of buildings has been carefully considered in order that the layout is dominated by a fragmented built form with substantial spaces between buildings allowing for meaningful structural planting
8.26 Your landscape officers generally agree. Your Urban Design officer states that it would be preferable for materials and colours used to appear as recessive and natural as possible, - muted colours perhaps a grey or similar render rather than stark white or cream and timber cladding that will silver with time and a sensitive lighting scheme would also help to reduce the impact at night. These matters can be dealt with by condition.
Page 130 8.27 The DCC AONB team agree that:
• The site is 2km from the AONB boundary, to the northwest. However, as indicated by the landscape assessment, visibility of the development will not affect publically accessible views until greater distances, from higher ground.
• The brownfield status of the site should be recognised within the visual baseline. The ability to discern changes in the baseline over the distances involved is likely to be limited, considering the modest apparent increase in scale and mass that will occur.
• The development will commonly be seen in the context of wider built environment. In particular, when seen from elevated land within the AONB, the site tends seen in association with development at locations including the holiday park at Littlesea, Lanehouse, Camp Road and Fortuneswell.
8.28 And they recommend that two measures are pursued in order to minimise the visual impact of the development. Firstly, light and reflective finishes should be avoided. Consequently, it would be prudent to dull down the proposed light coloured render and utilise antireflective finishes to glazing. Secondly, ongoing maintenance of the proposed landscaping scheme is required, particularly because the location is exposed and this factor appears to have limited the growth of existing vegetation. These matters can be dealt with by condition.
8.29 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development will deliver landscape enhancements and improve the visual integrity of the Heritage Coast in accordance with Policies ENV1 and ENV10 of the Local Plan.
8.30 Amenity - Your officers agree with the applicants submission which states wit the exception of the existing bungalow at No. 3 Mandeville Road to the east of the site access, there are no neighbouring dwellings in close proximity to the site that could be affected by overlooking, loss of light, overbearing impact as a result of the development proposals.
8.31 The neighbouring bungalow at the site access is located to the south of Plots 1 and 7, which are 6m and 15 m from the north elevation of the bungalow respectively. The proposed buildings are positioned with their narrowest profile (6 m wide side elevations) facing the bungalow. No windows are proposed in these side elevations, which could be maintained in perpetuity by planning condition. By virtue of the separation distances, their orientation to the north, and lack of facing windows, it is considered that Plots 1 and 7 will not have a detrimental impact upon the residential amenities of the adjacent bungalow.
8.32 The removal of the commercial buildings directly in front of the bungalow will improve the aspect from its front elevation allowing views of the Fleet across the proposed open space along the south east boundary.
Page 131 8.33 The reduction in traffic generation from the proposed residential use will improve residential amenity.
8.34 Having regard to the above, the proposed development complies with Local Plan policy ENV16.
8.35 Ecology - The accompanying Ecological Assessment considers the application site to be of low ecological value. The site does not support any protected species or their habitats. The only features of ecological interest are the existing boundary hedgerows, which contain native species and provide opportunities for nesting birds and potential foraging for bats.
8.36 The proposed development will not have any harmful impact upon protected species or their habitats. The existing hedgerows will be retained and supplemented by the proposals, retaining and enhancing opportunities for use by birds and bats. The proposal is therefore compliant with Policy ENV2 of the Local Plan. Furthermore the County Council’s Nature Conservation team has issued a Certificate for their biodiversity mitigation plan. In addition, Natural England has advised that, “given the nature and scale of the proposal” they are satisfied that there is not likely to be any adverse effect on this site.
8.37 Affordable Housing - 13 No. affordable houses are proposed (equating to 35% of the total housing provision) at plots 1 – 13 in the south east corner of the site. The affordability and availability of the affordable housing will be secured by S.106 agreement. It is expected that the affordable housing tenure will be 70% Affordable Rented and 30% intermediate (Shared Ownership and other models).
8.38 The affordable housing mix of 6 x 2 bed and 7 x 3 bed houses has been discussed and agreed with your Housing Enabling Team.
8.39 The design and layout of the affordable housing has also been discussed and amended during the pre-application process in order that Plots 1 – 13 possess the same overall design characteristics as the market housing and are therefore ‘tenure blind’.
8.40 Accordingly the proposal complies with Policy HOUS1 of the adopted Local Plan.
8.41 Loss of Employment - Outside of key employment sites, as is the case here, Policy ECON3 of the Local Plan is supportive of alternative uses of existing employment land (includes retail uses) providing certain criteria are met. The proposal is compliant with Policy ECON3 as set out below: · The proposed residential use would not prejudice the continued use of any adjacent remaining employment land; · The current buildings and retail use, encompassing significant yard and parking areas, has a harmful visual impact on the character of the surrounding landscape and Heritage Coast. The re-development of the site for a less intensive residential use will bring landscape betterment
Page 132 in this regard. The continued use of the site for employment purposes, either occupying the existing buildings or in new commercial scale buildings, would not deliver these landscape enhancements. As acknowledged by the Council’s Employment Land Review, the site and its environs are not considered suitable for new employment uses due to its access and landscape constraints. Accordingly it is considered unlikely that other employment uses would be attracted to the site, or further planning permission granted on the site for new operational development associated with such uses; · The District Council’s Employment Land Review indicates that a substantial supply of suitable alternative employment sites exists locally; · The proposed development will provide important community benefits by the delivery of much needed affordable housing. Public open space and recreational public footpath links will also be enhanced. · Discussions have taken place with Value House Stores and agreement has been reached with them to allow an extended period of occupation to enable an orderly relocation thereby safeguarding existing employment.
8.42 Having regard to the above, it is considered that the proposed development accords with Policy ECON3.
8.43 The current unrestricted A1 use of this ‘out-of-town’ site is contrary to current national and local planning policy discouraging large scale retail uses in such areas in order to protect town centres. The removal of the retail use will help safeguard the vitality of nearby town centres in accordance with the aims and aspirations of Policy ECON4.
8.44 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.
8.45 The rate at which CIL is charged is £100 per sq. m.. Confirmation of the final CIL charge will be included in a CIL liability notice issued prior to the commencement of the development.
8.46 Drainage/Flood Risk - The application site is located within Flood Zone 1 with a low probability of flooding where residential uses are considered appropriate by the Technical Guide to the NPPF.
8.47 The accompanying Flood Risk Assessment confirms that the site is not at risk of flooding. An indicative surface water drainage strategy is proposed, which demonstrates how surface water drainage will be disposed of via SUDS in an appropriate manner at a Greenfield rate without exacerbating flooding elsewhere, and allowing for future climate change. The extent of impermeable surfaces on the existing site will be significantly reduced to the benefit of controlled surface water run-off/flood risk. A detailed drainage strategy can be provided in due course and controlled by a suitably worded Grampian condition but an indicative drainage
Page 133 strategy is included within the accompanying Flood Risk Assessment. This proposes the use of Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) to attenuate surface water on site and disposal via soakaways given favourable ground conditions for infiltration. Porous paving also will be used in many places. The draft drainage strategy demonstrates that the amount of impermeable surfaces on the site will reduce significantly from 1.6 hectares to 0.7 hectares. Foul drainage will be directed to the existing combined sewer in Mandeville Road. The proposal is therefore compliant with Policy ENV5 of the Local Plan
8.48 Contamination - The submitted Geo-Environmental Report considers that the wider site is not subject to contamination from previous uses that would prevent residential use. However, some localised contamination is identified that requires further investigation and remediation following the demolition of the existing buildings and prior to commencement of any re-development. Subject to further investigation and appropriate mitigation being controlled by a suitably worded Grampian condition, the proposal is compliant with Policy ENV9.
8.49 Services - The applicant points out that it is considered that suitable services and infrastructure to the site can be provided, in accordance with Local Plan Policy COM10. Following enquiries with Wessex Water, existing foul and surface water drainage infrastructure within Mandeville Road has capacity to service the site. These services do not currently extend past Mandeville Close so would need to be continued up to the site at the developer’s cost.
9 SUMMARY OF ISSUES
9.1 Having considered the impact of the proposal given the wide ranging issues as set out above and given the Housing Land Supply issue as set out, the proposal is considered to meet the sustainable development criteria of the NPPF (the social; environment; and economic strands) and is considered acceptable. Any concerns associated with the individual design of the buildings are not considered to outweigh the wider benefits that the scheme would deliver.
10 RECOMMENDATION
10.1 Delegate authority to the Head of Planning (Development Management & Building Control) to grant planning permission subject to a Section 106 Agreement as regards 35% affordable housing and subject to conditions
1) 3YRFUL (Standard)
The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2) PLAN1 (Approved Plans)
3) D09E (Materials: Samples)
Page 134 Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, details and samples of all facing and roofing materials shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details.
Reason: To ensure that the external appearance of the completed development is sympathetic to its locality.
4) L16G (Landscaping Major)
Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, full details of both hard and soft landscape works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and these works shall be carried out as approved. These details shall include where relevant: (i) proposed finished levels or contours; (ii) means of enclosure; (iii) car parking layouts; (iv) other vehicle and pedestrian access and circulation areas; (v) hard surfacing materials; (vi) minor artefacts and structures (eg furniture, play equipment, refuse or other storage units, signs, lighting, etc); (vii) proposed and existing functional services above and below ground (eg drainage, power, communications cables, pipelines, etc indicating lines, manholes, supports, etc); (viii) retained historic landscape features and proposals for restoration. If within a period of 5 years from the date of the planting of any tree/plant, that tree/plant or any tree/plant planted in replacement for it, is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies (or becomes in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority seriously damaged or defective) another tree/plant of the same species and size as that originally planted shall be replanted in the first available planting season unless the Local Planning Authority agrees in writing to any variation.
Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.
5) L12F (Landscaping Implementation)
All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. The works shall be carried out prior to the occupation of any part of the development or in accordance with a programme agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: Landscaping is considered essential in order to preserve and enhance the visual amenities of the locality.
6) L35F (Boundary treatments)
Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, a plan indicating the positions, design, height, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details and shall be completed before occupation of the dwellings unless otherwise
Page 135 agreed with the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To safeguard the amenities of the locality and the privacy of the occupiers of adjoining premises.
7) Biodiversity Management Plan
The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the applicants Biodiversity Management Plan agreed with Dorset County Council. and the submitted Extended Phase 1 Ecological Assessment January 2016.
Reason: In the interests of protected species and to provide an improved wildlife habitat and facilities for nature conservation.
8 Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority details of the proposed drainage works (foul and surface water) shall have been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority and the approved drainage scheme shall be completed before occupation of the development.
Reason: To ensure that adequate drainage is made to serve the development.
9 Before the commencement of development, the developer shall submit for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority: (a) a 'desk study' report documenting the site history; (b) a site investigation report documenting the ground conditions of the site, and incorporating a ‘conceptual model’ of all potential pollutant linkages, detailing the identified sources, pathways and receptors and basis of risk assessment; (c) a detailed scheme for remedial works and measures to be taken to avoid risk from contaminants/or gases when the site is developed; (d) a detailed phasing scheme for the development and remedial works. The remediation scheme, as agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, shall be fully implemented before the development is occupied. Any variation to the scheme shall be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority in advance of works being undertaken. On completion of the works the developer shall provide written confirmation that all works were completed in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason: To ensure that risks from soil contamination to the future occupants of the development and neighbouring occupiers are minimised, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
10 Before the commencement of development, a further investigation and risk assessment shall be completed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority to assess the nature and extent of any contamination on the site. The investigation and risk assessment shall be undertaken by competent persons and a written report of the findings shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development. The report of the findings must include: (i) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of
Page 136 contamination; (ii) an assessment of the potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed, including buildings, crops, livestock, pets, woodland and service lines and pipes), adjoining land, groundwaters and surface waters, ecological systems, archeological sites and ancient monuments; (iii) an appraisal of remedial options, and proposal of the preferred option(s). This must be conducted in accordance with DEFRA and the Environment Agency’s ‘Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination, CLR 11’.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
11 Before the commencement of development, a detailed remediation scheme to bring the site to a condition suitable for the intended use by removing unacceptable risks to human health, buildings and other property and the natural and historical environment shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme must include all works to be undertaken, proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, timetable of works and site management procedures. The scheme must ensure that the site will not qualify as contaminated land under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to the intended use of the land after remediation.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
12 Before the commencement of development, the approved remediation scheme shall be carried out unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a validation report that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Reason: To ensure that risks from land contamination to the future users of the land and neighbouring land are minimised, together with those to controlled waters, property and ecological systems, and to ensure that the development can be carried out safely without unacceptable risks to workers, neighbours and other offsite receptors, having regard to the National Planning Policy Framework March 2012.
Page 137 13 Before any dwelling is first occupied details shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority showing detailed proposals of positions and design of street lighting columns, for the development and the development shall be completed in accordance with these details
Reason: To ensure that adequate street lighting is provided and to in the interests of visual amenity.
14 Before the commencement of development, unless otherwise agreed by the Local Planning Authority, a landscape management plan, including long term management responsibilities for the open space and maintenance schedules for all landscape areas, other than small, privately owned, domestic gardens, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to the occupation of the development or any phase of the development, whichever is the sooner, for its permitted use. The landscape management plan shall be carried out as approved.
Reason: To ensure that adequate on going maintenance is afforded to these areas.
15 The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the access road and highway layout, parking and turning areas shown on the approved site plan Drawing Number 3527/002 RevD have been constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, these shall be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.
Reason: In the interests of road safety
Informative Note: The applicant is advised that, notwithstanding this consent, if it is intended that the highway layout be offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, the applicant should contact Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at [email protected], or in writing at Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
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 138