Planning Committee 18 January, 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. 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 – 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.

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. 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 : 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 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.

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 ’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 , Dorset and 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; 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. 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. 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 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: 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 · 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

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 • 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.

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. 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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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 , Dorchester & ). 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.

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.

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.

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).