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, 13 September 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 Elaine Tibble 01305 838223 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. Please note that if you attend a committee meeting and make oral representations to the committee your name, together with a summary of your comments will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. The minutes, which are the formal record of the meeting, will be available to view in electronic and paper format, as a matter of public record, for a minimum of 6 years following the date of the meeting.
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, 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/19/00116 - LAND NORTH OF POUND ROAD, THORNFORD 5 - 16
6 WD/D/18/000296/FUL - LAND WEST OF CHARMNINSTER FARM, 17 - 70 WANCHARD LANE, CHARMINSTER 7 WD/D/18/001399 - LAND ADJOINING WATTON PARK, WATTON 71 - 92 PARK, BRIDPORT
8 WD/D/18/001400 - LAND SOUTH OF WATTON PARK, WATTON 93 - 98 PARK, BRIDPORT
9 WD/D/17/002598 - 5 BACK STREET, ABBOTSBURY, WEYMOUTH, 99 - 104 DT3 4JP
10 WD/D/18/000178 - SEA CAMPION, SWYRE ROAD, WEST 105 - 110 BEXINGTON, DORCHESTER, DT2 9DD
11 URGENT ITEMS
To consider any items that the Chairman decides are urgent.
12 DATE OF SITE VISIT
Monday 8 October 2018.
13 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).
14 INFORMAL MEMBER'S BRIEFINGS
To receive informal briefings from officers on major forthcoming applications (if any).
15 QUESTIONS
To receive questions submitted by members in writing to the Chief Executive and in respect of which the appropriate notice has been given. This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 5
APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/000116
APPLICATION SITE: Land north of Pound Road, Thornford
PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential development of up to 35 dwellings & associated infrastructure
APPLICANT: Sherborne Castle Estates
CASE OFFICER: Robert Lennis
WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr R A S Legg, Cllr M Lawrence
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Grant conditional planning permission
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
1.1 The application site comprises 1.9ha of pasture land bordered by hedgerows along its northern and southern boundaries. It shares a boundary with, and is located to the north-east of, Thornford. There is an existing field gate access to the site from Pound Road.
1.2 Thornford Parish has a population of approximately 840. The village benefits from a good range of services and facilities including primary school, general grocers and post office, public house, village hall and fuel station/garage. The nearby settlements of Yeovil and Sherborne have an extended range of facilities and amenities available, including a range of major supermarkets. The closest comprehensive school and sixth form, The Gryphon School, is in Sherborne.
1.3 The village of Thornford is located approximately 4 miles to the south west of Sherborne and 6 miles from the larger town of Yeovil.
1.4 Pound Road has a pedestrian footway on the northern side of the road which leads into the centre of the village and currently terminates at the corner of the site. There is a railway station on the outskirts of the village, 1.7km to the southwest of the site. The station is on the Bristol to Weymouth line.
Page 5 2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
2.1 This is an outline application which seeks to agree the principle of residential development of up to 35 dwellings along with approval of access details. Matters relating to the details of layout, appearance, landscaping, and scale are reserved for future consideration should permission be granted.
2.2 Affordable housing (35%) is to be agreed by way of a section 106 legal agreement.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
3.1 None.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
4.2 The revised National Planning Policy Framework was published in July 2018 and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how these are expected to be applied.
4.3 Paragraph 11 states that for decision-taking this means:
approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless: o the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or o 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.
4.4 The NPPF also states that: Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and
Page 6 environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. (Para. 38)
4.5 Other sections of the NPPF of particular relevance to this application are listed below. 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well designed places
4.6 West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (adopted 2015)
4.7 The following policies are considered to be most relevant to this case: INT1 - Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development ENV1 - Landscape, Seascape and Sites of Geological Interest ENV 2 - Wildlife and Habitats ENV8 - Agricultural Land and Farming Resilience ENV10 - The Landscape and Townscape Setting ENV11 - The Pattern of Streets and Spaces ENV15 - Efficient and Appropriate Use of Land SUS2 - Distribution of Development HOUS1 - Affordable Housing COM1 - Making Sure New Development Makes Suitable Provision for Community Infrastructure COM7 - Creating a Safe and Efficient Transport Network
5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
5.1 Joint Annual Monitoring Report West Dorset and Weymouth and Portland (2016/17)
5.2 Planning Obligations Guidelines (2010)
5.3 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment (2009)
6. HUMAN RIGHTS:
6.1 This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party as per:
Article 1 – The first protocol; Protection of property.
Page 7 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home.
7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
7.2 Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.
8. CONSULTATIONS:
8.1 Ministry of Defence has no safeguarding objections.
8.2 Health and Safety Executive has raised no objections.
8.3 Scottish Gas Network has raised no objections.
8.4 DCC as Local Highway Authority has no objections subject to conditions.
8.5 DCC as Lead Local Flood Authority has no objections subject to conditions.
8.6 DCC Planning Obligations Manager has no comments based on the understanding that this application is CIL liable.
8.7 DCC Nature Conservation Team has no objections subject to the biodiversity mitigation plan submitted with the application being a matter of a bespoked condition with any approval.
8.8 Yeohead & Castleton Group Parish Council has raised no objections.
8.9 Thornhackett Parish Council (TPC) has raised concerns and objections to the proposal. We are informed that TPC “…held a public meeting on Monday 12th March 2018 at Thornford Village Hall. The meeting was
Page 8 attended by 58 local residents. A vote taken at the end of the meeting resulted in 30 residents against the application and 17 for. Therefore we object to this application on the following grounds.”
8.10 A summary of their concerns relate to: precedent for future development, Policy SUS2 of the Local Plan, traffic, buses and transportation, sewerage and drainage, the use of Green Lane and Drove Road which are not public highways, wildlife, the need for affordable housing in this village, and loss of greenfield space. Their comments are set out in full here:
“The proposed site is located on the north-eastern edge of Thornford within a Greenfield site and would lie outside the defined development boundary of Thornford. Thereby creating a precedent for future extended pockets of development by extending the defined development boundary. The District Council currently has a 5 year housing land supply and therefore its policies are up to date for the purposes of the National Planning Policy Framework. Development outside the DDB is strictly controlled and restricted to that identified in Policy SUS2 of the adopted West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan. No overriding justification for making an exception to this policy has been made in the application and therefore in the light of the accepted housing land supply the proposal is contrary to Policy SUS2.
Issues raised were additional traffic volume through Thornford and the extra traffic flow from Yetminster development of around 80 additional house.
The lack of public bus transport and dependency on cars.
There is the “Nordcat” charity bus limited to bus pass holders, disabled and disadvantaged people running on a Thursday from Thornford via other villages to Sherborne allowing a period of two hours to carry out shopping then return. A similar run on a Tuesday and Saturday to Yeovil another two hour visit. Apart from that bus the taxi single journey Thornford to Sherborne is £7 and single to Yeovil £13 making it very expensive for limited income families and young people.
The supporting text to Policy SUS2 of the LP sets out that the ‘resulting dependency on cars would inevitably increase carbon emissions and disadvantage those who don’t have a car (usually the more vulnerable groups in our society), which is why it makes sense to try to focus development at the towns’. Consequently, lack of public transport weighs against the proposal, as does the heavy reliance on a private motor vehicle.
Page 9 There was concern expressed about the effect of developments on the sewerage drains within the village as there are already issues with sewerage seeping at some sites in the village. It was also noted that the Wessex Water sewerage site close to Thornford also takes effluent from Yetminster and the pipes currently used are no more than 6 inch diameter.
It was noted that Highways consultation have taken note of the proposal to use the “Green Lane” “The Drove” despite it not being a public right of way. There was objection this due to the historic drove road and environmental issues with regard to native plant species, insects, birds and mammals
Thornford Halt Railway Station is good 20 minute walk from the development site and with very limited parking facility and no rail connection to Sherborne.
Having regard to affordable housing in respect of local needs before any potential site is considered, it is essential to determine how many identifiable local people are in need of affordable housing and what they are able to afford. The overall average house price in Thornford is £262,083.
The proposed development would not result in a benefit in environmental and landscape terms, to the contrary it would lead to the loss of valuable Greenfield space.”
8.11 Housing Enabling Team has noted that the proposal would provide a policy compliant 35% affordable housing. There is a need for affordable housing in Thornford and the adjacent Parishes and this proposal would help meet that need.
8.12 Urban Design Officer has raised no objections. This is an outline application indicative layout could be improved upon and should not be seen to set a precedent.
8.13 Landscape and Trees Officer has raised no objections to the proposal subject to a condition regarding future planting. ***
8.14 Technical Services has raised no objections.
9. REPRESENTATIONS:
9.1 Eleven letters of representations were received. Several of the representations were predicated on the principle of development being acceptable but had concerns with the detail of the proposal. Other
Page 10 representations offered no support. The concerns and objections raised relate to the following: Setting precedent for development outside the designated development boundary; Highway safety, volume of traffic, and street parking; Lack of Infrastructure (public transport, schools, shops, roads, etc); Drainage and flooding; Ecology and habitat; Scale of development; Sustainability credentials; Access and use of other roads; Landscaping and character of the village; Noise and disruption; Poor location for access;
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
10.1 This application seeks to establish the principle of development and approval of access details. As such, some of the issues raised by the TPC and in representations cannot be addressed at this time.
10.2 The main issues of this case are considered to relate to the following: 5 year housing land supply Policy SUS2 and principle of development Affordable housing Highway matters Flood risk Ecology Other planning matters
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT: Headings from above list plus Other matters
5 year housing land supply
11.1 The Council cannot, at the present time, demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply as set out in the Joint Annual Monitoring Report 2016/17. Therefore, the presumption in favour of sustainable development as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF is engaged.
11.2 This means that our Local Plan policies in relation to housing proposals are not up-to-date and that planning permission should be granted unless there are protected areas or assets of particular importance associated with the site which provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or, any adverse impacts from allowing the proposed
Page 11 development would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPPF taken as a whole.
11.3 This site is not part of a protected area, nor does it have assets of a particular importance. In this regard, it is considered that there would be no adverse impacts from allowing the proposed development that could be said to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of boosting the supply of housing.
Policy SUS2 and the principle of development
11.4 In light of our current housing land supply, Policy SUS2 is not up-to-date and cannot be given full weight.
11.5 Policy SUS2 is intend to guide development to the most appropriate locations in the district. It states in part 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…”
11.6 Thornford has a defined development boundary (DDB). While the proposed development site is not within the DDB it does share a boundary with the settlement and should be seen as an extension to the settlement rather than isolated development in the countryside. The site is currently used as arable land bounded by hedge rows. There are no particular landscape or ecological designations associate with the site.
11.7 In terms of appropriate scale, the population of Thornford is approximately 840 people. The proposed development of up to 35no. dwelling would add approximately 80 more people (35 * 2.3 (average household size)); less than 10 percent.
11.8 The proposed scale is not considered to be inappropriate.
Affordable housing
11.9 The applicant is offering 35% of the dwellings to be affordable housing of which 70% will be social/affordable rent and 30% intermediate affordable housing. This is compliant with policy (approximately 12no. homes).
11.10 The provision of affordable housing should be given significant weight in the planning balance.
Highway matters
11.11 The County Highway Authority has raised no objections to the proposal. Conditions to ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site
Page 12 are sought in relation to details of future road access to the public highway, and details of internal road layout including turning and parking areas.
Flood risk
11.12 On the basis of the additional clarification provided, and improved understanding of the (conceptual) strategy of surface water management (SWM) provided, Dorset County Council’s Flood Risk Management team have withdrawn their objection, subject conditions and informative(s).
11.13 The conditions seek detailed information about the SWM, and details about maintenance and management.
Ecology
11.14 The County’s Natural Environment Team are satisfied with the submitted biodiversity mitigation plan (BMP) and have issued a signed certificate saying as much.
11.15 The proposed development should be conditioned to be carried out in accordance with the submitted BMP.
Other planning matters
11.16 The proposed development is CIL liable. Contributions will be collected in accordance with this Council’s published guidance.
11.17 Contributions towards the designation of a local area of play along with management and maintenance are part of the ongoing negotiation of the section 106 legal agreement.
11.18 This is an outline application to agree the principle of development and access only. The details regarding appearance, landscaping, layout, and scale will need to be considered at the reserved matter stage.
12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:
12.1 Overall it is considered that this development broadly accords with the provision of the development plan as only limited weight should be given to policy SUS2 which is out-of-date as we are unable to demonstrate a 5 year HLS.
12.2 The concerns and objections of the parish council have been noted above, as well as local residents.
Page 13
12.3 With the exception of the parish council, no objections have been raised by any of the relevant statutory consultees.
12.4 It is considered that there are no clear reason to refuse this application, nor any adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies of the NPPF when taken as a whole.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
13.1 Delegate to the Head of Planning authority to approve subject to: (a) a section 106 agreement; and (b) the following conditions:
1. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the following plans submitted by the applicant: - Site plan 160701 L 01 01 - Proposed Site Access 001/4255 Rev B - Proposed Drainage Strategy 200 Rev B
2. Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the geometric highway layout of the access as shown on Drawing Number 001/4255 Revision A must be constructed. Thereafter, this must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified. Reason: In the interest of highway safety.
3. Prior to any development details of the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the development shall be completed in accordance with the agreed details. Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site.
4. Prior to any development a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development and confirmation of the existing drainage infrastructure shall be and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed details before the development is completed. Reason: To prevent the increased risk of flooding or overwhelming of existing drainage infrastructure, and to protect water quality.
5. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have
Page 14 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.
6. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted Biodiversity Mitigation Plan (dated 15/01/2018 and signed 16.01.2018). Reason: To ensure adequate mitigation and management of the ecological concerns related to the site.
Informativies:
1. All works to a channel with the status of Ordinary Watercourse, that offer or create an obstruction to flow, are likely to require prior Land Drainage Consent from Dorset County Council, in accordance with s23 of the Land Drainage Act 1991.
2. Developer-Led Infrastructure - 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.
3. No traffic calming measures are required by the County Highway Authority as part of this proposal.
Page 15 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 6
APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/000296/FUL
APPLICATION SITE: LAND WEST OF CHARMINSTER FARM INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, WANCHARD LANE, CHARMINSTER
PROPOSAL: ERECTION OF 52 DWELLINGS, ACCESS, LANDSCAPING, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE & ASSOCIATED WORKS
APPLICANT: LEWIS WYATT (CONSTRUCTION) LTD
CASE OFFICER: MARTIN PENDLEBURY
WARD MEMBER(S): CLLR FRED HORSINGTON & CLLR TIMOTHY YARKER
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY:
Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure: 1. 35% of the units as affordable housing (including residual 0.4% balance as a financial contribution) 2. Provision of areas of public open space and its maintenance 3. Provision and maintenance of land reserved for the Sustainable Drainage Scheme and then APPROVE subject to the conditions listed in paragraph 13.1 below.
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE
1.1 The site comprises 2.46 hectares of mainly fallow agricultural land adjoining the Wyatt Homes housing development currently under construction in Charminster. The village cemetery also lies to the south and Charminster Farm Industrial Estate to the east. To the north lies Wanchard Lane; on the opposite side is Dorset County Council’s Highways Depot and a detached house. To the west of the site is open arable farmland.
1.2 The site includes a pocket of land to the south west next to the cemetery for an area of open space incorporating a SuD’s basin and a sub-station.
1.3 There is an existing field access in the north east corner of the site onto Wanchard Lane. The south eastern sector of the site and the field access are currently being used for a temporary construction compound by Wyatt Homes for their ‘Phase 1’ development site (comprising 70 homes and a community building) adjoining the sites southern boundary and also
Page 17 extending further eastward, behind Charminster Farm Industrial Estate and St Mary’s First School.
1.4 A small strip of land within the site adjoining the northern existing field hedgerow to Wanchard Lane has a number of unsightly old damaged and decaying vehicles and trailers which appear to have been stored there for a number of years.
1.5 The site is enclosed by a mix of mature native hedgerows and trees to the north and east. There is a single tree of note (veteran Ash) located within the north western quadrant of the site. The topography is mainly level, although there is a slight fall from east to west.
1.6 The site is situated within the Cerne and Piddle Valleys and Chalk Downland landscape character area. It is also in an area of known surface water flooding and within a Groundwater Source Protection Zone and falls within the buffer of a contaminated site. Whilst the site itself has no statutory landscape designation, in terms of the wider general topography it should be noted there are long distance views from the remainder of the field to the west due south west, across the Frome River valley and beyond to the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty – Dorchester Downs (Open Chalk Downland).
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT
2.1 This full planning application proposes a residential development comprising 52 dwellings consisting of 2, 3 and 4-bedroom properties. The proposal also includes a small element of flatted development in the north eastern quadrant of the site. This element is in an appropriately bespoke building designed to blend with its rural edge of village setting. The proposals include 35% affordable housing with the remainder comprising open market housing.
2.2 The single point of access to the site is proposed from the south as a continuation of the principal road within the permitted development at Charminster Farm (ref: WD/D/15/002639) which takes access from the adopted public highway also from the south at Weir View.
2.3 The proposed development will provide a new areas of public open space retaining the large veteran Ash tree within the site, landscaping and associated infrastructure works. The proposal incorporates green infrastructure, including recreational/amenity space, set within the site’s existing and proposed ‘structural landscape framework’.
2.4 A Sustainable Drainage System is incorporated in the scheme, using a combination of soakaways and infiltration basins in the south western corner of the site.
Page 18 2.5 The proposed housing mix is as follows: Schedule of Accommodation • 52 dwellings • 34 private dwellings • 18 affordable dwellings
Open Market Affordable Rent Shared Ownership 2 bed flats 5 2 bed houses 2 2 3 bed houses 21 6 3 4 bed houses 13 Sub total 34 13 5 Total 52
2.6 The development proposals comprise several different house types as well as the element of flatted development, which have been specially designed for the site. The external appearance of these dwellings and materials to be used in the treatment of boundaries and hard surfacing is detailed on the plans and in the Design and Access Statement (DAS).
2.7 Materials will include, render, flint and some reconstituted stone work. Such materials have been used at the Charminster Phase 1 site. The Design and Access Statement confirms that local materials will be utilised within the development to respect the character of the village and to reinforce local distinctiveness whilst reflecting the identity of the village. The proposed scheme is clearly intended to have a strong design relationship with the Phase 1 development whilst also evolving the ‘design language’ as you move northward and westward into the proposed Phase 2.
2.8 A ‘structural’ landscape strategy is submitted in support of this application. The existing boundary vegetation to the north, east and south of the site will be retained and reinforced with new native planting. A strong new continuous native hedgerow and tree planting structural landscape ‘buffer’ is proposed on the western boundary of the site. The proposed landscape strategy details how each street with have a defined planting palette which will also reinforce the distinctive character.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY
3.1 Lewis Wyatt (Construction) Ltd - Wyatt Homes is currently building the consented Charminster Farm development of 70 new homes and community building located to the south and east of the this application site (Ref. WD/D/14/002784/OUT & WD/D/15/002639RES), hereafter referred to as Phase 1.
Page 19 3.2 The only other relevant site history for this site dates back to a refusal of planning permission in 1988 for development of land for industrial/business and residential use and construct estate roads (Ref. 1/E/88/000168).
4.0 RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 In accordance with section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and section 70(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the planning policy framework relevant to the determination of the application comprises the adopted development plan and relevant material considerations. The site is located within the administrative boundary of West Dorset District Council and as such the development plan comprises the following documents:
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
ENV3. - GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK
ENV4. - HERITAGE ASSETS
ENV5. - FLOOD RISK
ENV9. - POLLUTION AND CONTAMINATED LAND
ENV10. - THE LANDSCAPE AND TOWNSCAPE SETTING
ENV11. - THE PATTERN OF STREETS AND SPACES
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
Page 20 HOUS1. - AFFORDABLE HOUSING
HOUS3. - OPEN MARKET HOUSING MIX
HOUS4. - DEVELOPMENT OF FLATS, HOSTELS AND HOUSES IN MULTIPLE OCCUPATION
COM1. - MAKING SURE NEW DEVELOPMENT MAKES SUITABLE PROVISION FOR COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE
COM4. - NEW OR IMPROVED LOCAL RECREATIONAL FACILITIES
COM7. - CREATING A SAFE AND EFFICIENT TRANSPORT NETWORK
COM9. - PARKING STANDARDS IN NEW DEVELOPMENT
COM10. -THE PROVISION OF UTILITIES SERVICE INFRASTRUCTURE
4.2 Review of Local Plan
The Council is currently undertaking a review of this Local Plan to identify additional housing land to meet objectively assessed needs, as well as identifying a long-term strategy for development in the Dorchester area as required by the Local Plan Inspector. The Emerging Local Plan is at a relatively early stage of preparation.
4.3 The Council consulted on the Issues and Options of the Local Plan which ran from 6 February to 3 April 2017; that considered various options for growth, including the expansion of Charminster. An initial concept framework for this site was submitted by Lewis Wyatt (Construction) Ltd - Wyatt Homes to the Council during the consultation. This document presented a phased development approach for further development at Charminster Farm.
4.4 The Council is at the next public consultation stage of the Review of the Local Plan which has considered the responses of the Issues and Options consultation and now proposes Preferred Options. This consultation commenced on 3 August 2018 and runs through to 8 October 2018.
4.5 Relevant to this planning application is the emerging New Policy: DOR16. LAND TO THE WEST OF CHARMINSTER (PREFERRED OPTION) and the associated preferred options map (1.5) which defines the area of DOR16.
4.6 Notably the current application site is centrally located within and forms a relatively small part of the much larger DOR16. preferred option.
Page 21
4.7 However, given the extent of preparation thus far, limited weight can be afforded to the emerging Local Plan and its policies. As the Plan preparation progresses through further consultations and examination, the weight that can be afforded to the emerging Plan policies will increase, dependent on the level of unresolved objection to each individual policy.
4.8 As such the policies contained therein can only be afforded limited weight in the determination of this application.
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD)
Design and Sustainable Planning Guidelines (2009)
Landscape Character Areas (2009)
4.9 Notably the defined site is remote from Charminster Conservation area and any listed buildings, all of which are located some distance due east and south around the historic core of the village. However, the applicant’s Phase 1 scheme currently under construction does run up to the boundary with the Conservation Area. For completeness reference is therefore made here to the Charminster Conservation Area Appraisal (2007)
“The1 particular qualities of the Conservation Area are: 1 . Important walls, hedges and trees that enhance the setting of 2 buildings and link groups together;
A rich archaeological heritage, notably the sites of six medieval deserted settlements in the wider Parish (one in the Conservation Area), cultivation remains and prehistoric earthworks;
The detriments include the pressure for infill housing development with potential loss of gardens and boundaries; the condition of the Riding House; erosion of details on a number of good quality, unlisted buildings; the visual impacts of extensive areas of development on the landscape setting and on the historic fabric; and the loss of or damage to historic boundaries.” (p.6).
1 “Parks, Gardens, Trees and Open Spaces 1 . The Sub-area has a number of important, undeveloped gaps, 3 notably south of Charminster House to Wolfeton Farm, including the site of the deserted medieval village, the river valley and the grounds of Wolfeton House.” (p.36)
Page 22 1 Important tree groups and hedgerows on the site boundaries 1 identified on the setting & assets map (p.27). . 4
5.0 OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2018:
The NPPF has been updated with a revised version published on 23 July, 2018.
Section 2. “Achieving sustainable development” at paragraph 8 indicates:
“8. Achieving sustainable development means that the planning system has three overarching objectives, which are interdependent and need to be pursued in mutually supportive ways (so that opportunities can be taken to secure net gains across each of the different objectives):
a) an economic objective to help build a strong, responsive and competitive economy, by ensuring that sufficient land of the right types is available in the right places and at the right time to support growth, innovation and improved productivity; and by identifying and coordinating the provision of infrastructure;
b) a social objective to support strong, vibrant and healthy communities, by ensuring that a sufficient number and range of homes can be provided to meet the needs of present and future generations; and by fostering a well-designed and safe built environment, with accessible services and open spaces that reflect current and future needs and support communities’ health, social and cultural well-being; and
c) an environmental objective to contribute to protecting and enhancing our natural, built and historic environment; including making effective use of land, helping to improve biodiversity, using natural resources prudently, minimising waste and pollution, and mitigating and adapting to climate change, including moving to a low carbon economy.
Paragraph 11 of the NPPF advises of the ‘Presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
Page 23 ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.
12. The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of the development plan as the starting point for decision making. Where a planning application conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed.
13. The application of the presumption has implications for the way communities engage in neighbourhood planning. Neighbourhood plans should support the delivery of strategic policies contained in local plans or spatial development strategies; and should shape and direct development that is outside of these strategic policies.
14. In situations where the presumption (at paragraph 11d) applies to applications involving the provision of housing, the adverse impact of allowing development that conflicts with the neighbourhood plan is likely to significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, provided all of the following apply: a) the neighbourhood plan became part of the development plan two years or less before the date on which the decision is made; b) the neighbourhood plan contains policies and allocations to meet its identified housing requirement; c) the local planning authority has at least a three year supply of deliverable housing sites (against its five year housing supply requirement, including the appropriate buffer as set out in paragraph 73); and d) the local planning authority’s housing delivery was at least 45% of that required over the previous three years.
Section 5 ‘delivering a sufficient supply of homes’ outlines the governments objective in respect of land supply A sub-section ‘Rural housing’ at paragraphs 75 -77 reflects the requirement for development in rural areas.
Rural housing
77. In rural areas, planning policies and decisions should be responsive to local circumstances and support housing developments that reflect local needs. Local planning authorities should support opportunities to bring forward rural exception sites that will provide affordable housing to meet identified local needs, and consider whether allowing some market housing on these sites would help to facilitate this.
78. To promote sustainable development in rural areas, housing should be located where it will enhance or maintain the vitality of rural communities. Planning policies should identify opportunities for villages to grow and thrive,
Page 24 especially where this will support local services. Where there are groups of smaller settlements, development in one village may support services in a village nearby.
79. Planning policies and decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless one or more of the following circumstances apply: a) there is an essential need for a rural worker, including those taking majority control of a farm business, to live permanently at or near their place of work in the countryside; b) the development would represent the optimal viable use of a heritage asset or would be appropriate enabling development to secure the future of heritage assets; c) the development would re-use redundant or disused buildings and enhance its immediate setting; d) the development would involve the subdivision of an existing residential dwelling; or e) the design is of exceptional quality, in that it:
- is truly outstanding or innovative, reflecting the highest standards in architecture, and would help to raise standards of design more generally in rural areas; and
- would significantly enhance its immediate setting, and be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the local area.”
Paragraphs 83 and 84 'Supporting a prosperous rural economy' promotes the sustainable growth and expansion of all types of business and enterprise in rural areas, through conversion of existing buildings, the erection of well- designed new buildings, and supports sustainable tourism and leisure developments where identified needs are not met by existing rural service centres.
Section 11 ‘Making effective use of land’
Section 12 ‘Achieving well designed places’ indicates that all development to be of a high quality in design, and the relationship and visual impact of it to be compatible with the surroundings. In particular, and amongst other things, Paragraphs 124 – 132 advise that:
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.
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.
Permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take
Page 25 the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions.
Further advice contained in the following sections of the NPPF is of relevance: Section 9 – Promoting sustainable transport Section 14 – Climate change – & where applicable flooding & coastal change Section 15– Conserving & Enhancing the Natural Environment Section 16 – Conserving & Enhancing the Historic Environment - in Section 16, paragraph 192 advises:
“192. In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.”
When considering the potential impacts of proposals affecting heritage assets, the advice contained in paragraphs 193 – 196 is of relevance:
“Considering potential impacts 193. When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
194. Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of: a) grade II listed buildings, or grade II registered parks or gardens, should be exceptional; b) assets of the highest significance, notably scheduled monuments, protected wreck sites, registered battlefields, grade I and II* listed buildings, grade I and II* registered parks and gardens, and World Heritage Sites, should be wholly exceptional.
195. Where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to (or total loss of significance of) a designated heritage asset, local planning authorities should refuse consent, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or total loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss, or all of the following apply:
Page 26 a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term through appropriate marketing that will enable its conservation; and c) conservation by grant-funding or some form of not for profit, charitable or public ownership is demonstrably not possible; and d) the harm or loss is outweighed by the benefit of bringing the site back into use.
Para 196 - 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, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.
Section 17 – Facilitating the sustainable use of minerals is also of relevance in the determination of this planning application.
With particular regard to the approach to be taken in decision making the NPPF states: Section 4. Decision taking:
Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
Para 48 – Local planning authorities may give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to: a) the stage of preparation of the emerging plan (the more advanced its preparation, the greater the weight that may be given); b) the extent to which there are unresolved objections to relevant policies (the less significant the unresolved objections, the greater the weight that may be given); and c) the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to this Framework (the closer the policies in the emerging plan to the policies in the Framework, the greater the weight that may be given).
Para 49 - However in the context of the Framework – and in particular the presumption in favour of sustainable development – arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in the limited circumstances where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging plan; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the
Page 27 development plan for the area.
Para 50 - Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft plan has yet to be submitted for examination; or – in the case of a neighbourhood plan – before the end of the local planning authority publicity period on the draft plan. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how granting permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.
Officers note that where a 5-year supply of housing land cannot be demonstrated paragraph 11d i) and ii) of the Framework outlines the implications for how development proposals should be determined. It states that where the (local) development plan is absent, silent or relevant policies are out- of-date, planning permission should be granted unless the adverse impact of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
5.2 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.
6.0 HUMAN RIGHTS:
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.
7.0 PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics
Page 28 • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.
8.0 CONSULTATIONS:
8.1 Charminster Parish Council [amended scheme]: Object to the amended plans due to the volume of traffic coming out on to Weir View and the lack of an alternative access.
8.2 Natural England comments [amended scheme]: Natural England has previously commented on this proposal and made comments to the authority in our letter dated 27 March 2018. The advice provided in our previous response applies equally to this amendment although we made no objection to the original proposal.
The proposed amendments to the original application are unlikely to have significantly different impacts on the natural environment than the original proposal. Should the proposal be amended in a way which significantly affects its impact on the natural environment then, in accordance with Section 4 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, Natural England should be consulted again.
8.3 Wessex Water comment: Sewerage infrastructure:
The proposal is located in a groundwater flood risk area where there is a high risk of foul sewer inundation during periods of prolonged wet weather leading to sewer flooding. We are looking to work with the Local Lead Flood Authority to implement a groundwater management strategy and Wessex Water will be seeking higher levels of design and construction to ensure that the proposed drainage is resilient to the impacts of groundwater infiltration when the water table rises. The site shall be served by separate systems of drainage constructed to adoptable standards.
Surface Water Drainage
There are no public Surface Water sewers in proximity of this site and the drainage strategy (Flood Risk assessment: AWP Feb 2018) indicates surface water discharge to soakaways and infiltration basin. This Surface water disposal strategy will be subject to the approval of the Lead Local Flood Authority with supporting flood risk measures.
Page 29 Our records indicate this site is located in an area where there is a risk of high groundwater level and the adequate performance of soakaways and infiltration ponds when the water table rises must be demonstrated. We request that a robust surface water strategy is agreed as surface water connections to the public foul sewer network will not be permitted at a later date.
Land drainage run-off shall not be permitted to discharge either directly or indirectly to the public sewerage system
The site is located within an EA Source Protection area and further discussion will be required as to how proposals may affect our operations.
Foul Drainage
The developer is proposing a connection to the sewer network constructed under Phase 1 which is acceptable in principle to Wessex Water.
Wessex Water can adopt sewers under a S104 agreement subject to technical review of satisfactory engineering proposals. The developer should contact our local development engineer, [email protected] to agree proposals and submit details for technical review prior to construction. For more information refer to Wessex Water’s guidance notes ‘DEV011G – Section 104 Sewer Adoption’ and ‘DEV016G - Sewer Connections’
On site private sewers and sanitary appliances must be designed to be resilient to the impacts of sewer flooding due to high groundwater.
Planning applications in these high groundwater risk areas are assessed on a site by site basis. On this occasion Wessex Water will not object to this application where on site private sewers and sanitary appliances are designed to be resilient to the impacts of sewer flooding due to high groundwater and the inclusion of a planning condition:
Foul Drainage Condition - The development hereby permitted shall be constructed so as to provide a sealed system of foul water drainage.
Reason: To prevent groundwater infiltration into the foul sewer network affecting service levels to public sewer systems.
Water infrastructure
There is a 4’’ water main crossing the site and the location of this main must be accurately plotted on site and on drawings. There must be no construction within 3 metres either side of the water main (including changes to ground levels) and no tree planting within 6 metres. The developer must ensure that levels over the main are maintained and protection works are in place
Page 30 throughout the construction works. Subject to application, it may be possible to divert this water main at the developer’s cost to suit the site layout. Please see http://www.wessexwater.co.uk/Developers/Supply/Building-near-a-water- mains/ for further guidance.
A water supply can be made available to the proposed development with new water mains installed under a requisition arrangement. The point of connection can be agreed upon receipt of a Section 41 Requisition.
8.4 DCC Countryside Access Team comment: The proposed works are not in the vicinity of the public right of way [Footpath S14/29], as recorded on the County Definitive Map and Statement of rights of way. However, I am unaware of any unrecorded paths that may be affected.
I have no objection to the proposed development, as shown in the plans accompanying the application.
Please note that these comments are only in relation to the public rights of way within the vicinity of the site, and Dorset County Council reserve the right to comment further on the application with regards to other aspects of the application.
8.5 DCC Dorset Waste Partnership comments: DWP have some issues to raise and questions for clarification.
I have attached the guidance for developers in regards to position of bin storage areas, Para. 3.2, the collection service is from the kerbside on the public highway, the indicated locations for bin storage and collection points on the plan are on private drives. We do not collect from private streets/ drives as these are not adopted/maintained by the County Highways dept and so we cannot confirm they are at a standard of construction which is suitable for a 26t RCV, also should any degradation/damage be caused to the surface by our vehicles we will not accept liability.
Also the proposed collection points indicate a distance in excess of the required 10 metres to the nearest accessible public highway.
The expectation appears for residents to present bins/containers at specified collection points, how would this instruction be provided to residents and what alternative provision is in place should this not be adhered too.
In the current design I am afraid the DWP will be unable to carry out the collection service.
Following clarification from the applicant, DWP further comments [25 June, 2018]:
Page 31 I think as we discussed before if you/Wyatt’s are happy that we can take a 26t vehicle on to the areas designated private and we are not liable should any degradation take place of the road surface then that is fine; a written agreement is sufficient.
I recall from the designs that if we did access the private parts of the site that the distances to the collection areas were acceptable; the issue would have been distance to the designated public highway.
8.6 DCC Highway Authority Recommendation:
The County Highway Authority considers that the proposal does not present a material harm to the transport network or to highway safety and consequently has NO OBJECTION, but recommends the following conditions:
Estate Road Construction (adopted or private)
Before the development is occupied or utilised the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Number WYAT170809 CSL01 RevB 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.
Travel Plan to be implemented
Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised, the submitted Travel Plan must be implemented and operational.
Reason: In order to reduce or mitigate the impacts of the development upon the local highway network and surrounding neighbourhood by reducing reliance on the private car for journeys to and from the site.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Developer-Led Infrastructure
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.
8.7 DCC Mineral Planning Authority (MPA) comment:
Page 32 The Mineral Planning Authority has reviewed the area proposed for development. The majority of the proposed development site is within the Minerals Safeguarding Area designated under Policy SG1 of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Minerals Strategy 2014.
The MPA sets out the policy context and makes detailed comments. In conclusion it states:
The NPPF asserts that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. This places an onus on the MPA and LPA to ensure mineral resources are not unnecessarily sterilised but also that sites needed for other development remain capable of coming forward. To achieve this:
• Evidence of the mineral resource within the site needs to be provided to allow a sound planning judgement to be made.
• Where there is a ‘viable’ mineral resource, it will be necessary to reach a view as to whether or not its prior working would render the site incapable of non-mineral development afterwards. In practice this probably means only taking an agreed proportion of the mineral. This could be sequenced alongside associated ground works, landscaping and SUDS arrangements needed as part of the development.
• Once the resource is known, the MPA, LPA and developer can reach agreement as to a suitable phasing plan designed to minimise disruption to delivery of the non-mineral use whilst securing a meaningful quantity of viable mineral resource.
• It is possible that some agreed proportion of the aggregate could be prior-extracted as part of site works, and re-used on site. Alternatively, it could be sold to a quarry operator.
• There would be no expectation of working this site like a normal quarry. The MPA will take a pragmatic approach, securing a meaningful contribution towards supply of important aggregates which the development of the site should allow through effective phasing of the overall site development. After extraction the site should be left in a condition that allows the non-mineral development to proceed with the least possible delay.
• The MPA suggest that this overall process could be secured by the inclusion of a condition such as the following:
The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a mineral resources method statement has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in
Page 33 strict accordance with the approved method statement. The statement shall set out:
a) details of the method of investigation proposed to assess the amount, type/quality and extent of the mineral resource, including the location, depth and number of any boreholes; and
b) a programme for extraction of mineral reserves identified by (a) which sets out the amount, type/quality, extent and phasing of mineral extraction.
Extraction of minerals will not be required where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that:
• the identified reserves are of such limited quality or quantity that the cost of removing them would not be justified; and/or
• it is not environmentally feasible; and/or
• it would prevent or render unviable the implementation of the development hereby permitted.
REASON: To ensure that the mineral resource on the site is safeguarded in accordance with Policy SG1 (Mineral Safeguarding Area) of the Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Minerals Strategy.
8.8 DCC AONB Team comment:
I would like to provide the following comments as an update to my letter submitted previously, dated 10th May 2018.
As noted previously, the development site is located within the setting of Dorset AONB. It is, at closest, within 800m of the AONB boundary. However, publicly available views of the proposed development within the AONB would generally affect receptors at greater distances of approx. 1.5 – 2.5 km.
Views of the development are available from the southwest, across a broad arc that ranges from elevated ground south of Bradford Peverell, across to Poundbury. Publicly accessibly locations in this area that would be affected comprise both public footpaths and rural roads, with several locations being included in the assessment accompanying the application. The application is particularly likely to affect the outlook from the AONB from elevated land to the south of Bradford Peverell, making the application’s approach to landscaping along its western boundary an important consideration in terms of conserving and enhancing the setting of the designated area.
In my earlier letter I identified two key issues that meant that the application was not in agreement with aspect of the AONB’s Management Plan. The issues can be summarised as, firstly, the sufficiency of the landscaping
Page 34 proposals along the western boundary and, secondly, the ability of these to be delivered.
The landscape strategy now proposes a total of 155 metres of native trees and an understorey of native shrubs along the western boundary of the site. 115 metres of this landscape buffer will be 10m wide, with this section being that which is most closely associated with the edge of the housing plots. The proposed buffer is now confirmed to be within land that is under the ownership of the applicant and it my understanding that the council is in a position to secure this planting by planning condition.
In my opinion, considering only the outlook from Dorset AONB, the revised landscape strategy and clarification concerning landownership have substantively addressed the concerns that I identified in my earlier response. The full details of the landscape planting should now be confirmed through the use of a planning condition, should the Council be minded to approve the application.
8.9 DCC Natural Environment Team comments: Many thanks Bronwen for amending the BMP and updating the position regarding the veteran ash.
I have reviewed the amended BMP taking into account our exchanges, the site meeting note and the Landscape Strategy Statement (LSS). I have following comments to make:
There appears be inconsistencies between the BMP and the LSS which need addressing to ensure there is no future ambiguity on what has been conditioned.
In the LSS 1.2 it states that the northern boundary hedgerow will be enhanced with additional native and shrub planting. This should be addressed in the BMP in Section G, particularly as it was highlighted as not being in favourable condition.
• The LSS states approximately 70 m for the southern half of the eastern boundary, the BMP minimum of 60 metres. I would suggest they are both amended to a minimum of 70 m.
• Could you just state in the BMP that the western boundary will be a minimum of 10 metres wide.
• The LSS also states that the southern boundary by the cemetery will be enhanced and infilled and fenced for protection. This also needs to be included in the BMP. We would have preferred to have seen the two trees retained as discussed at the site meeting. However, with the proposed replacement specimen tree planting in addition to infilling and enhancement (with native species) as stated in LSS, then this mitigation would be acceptable with regards to commuting/foraging bats particularly if the
Page 35 additional planting ‘potentially’ proposed around the SUDS areas could be secured and captured in the BMP/LSS.
Given the above, it may be more sustainable for the long-term to integrate a couple more bats tubes in adjacent properties rather than position on poles.
Could you also include:
• that a LPA approved LEMP will be produced to secure long term management of boundaries, shelter belt , the veteran ash, tree planting, village green and the SUDs area.
• A compliance monitoring visit with results/photos sent to NET.
• Applicants dated signature
DCC Natural Environment Team comment [amended scheme]:
The ecological consultant has made the amendments but I’ve noticed the LEMP recommendation wasn’t included. However, to avoid further delays I have issued a Certificate of Approval for the final signed BMP attached but would recommend an additional requirement for a LPA approved LEMP to secure long term management of boundaries, shelter belt , the veteran ash, tree planting, village green and the SUDs area.
8.10 DCC/Local Lead Flood Authority comments:
This application follows an earlier planning permission for an adjacent site (Ref No: WD/D/14/002784), which is currently in the process of being built. This application was not commented on by us, since it was submitted prior to April 2015, however, this phase 2 application will be led on by ourselves, as the current statutory consultee for drainage.
With respect to flood risk, the site appears to be free from Ground Water (GW), pluvial & fluvial flood risk and is therefore at a very low risk of flooding. The centre of Charminster, however, which is south east of the site has experienced many fluvial events, which have resulted in property flooding. It is therefore particularly important that any development work is sensitive to these surrounding issues.
Regardless of prevailing risk, however, 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
Page 36 drainage strategy that does not create or exacerbate off site worsening and should mitigate flood risk to the site.
To this end, the information supplied in relation to surface water management includes:
Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) & Drainage Strategy (DS): Charminster Farm – Phase 2 – AWP Ltd. – Rev B (09/02/2018) – Ref No: 0669
The above document provides sufficient substantiation for the proposals and confirm the following:
• Ground investigation (GI) and soakaways tests have been completed, which confirm that the site will support infiltration. A reduction in runoff will therefore be achieved post-development.
• A provisional layout has been provided in relation to pipe work, infiltration basin and cellular infiltration tanks.
• Current topography has been considered along with exceedance routing post-development.
• Future maintenance regimes and ownership have been considered and discussed at length.
• Provisional calculations and storage volumes have also been undertaken.
• We are also encouraged by the commitment to ensure that drainage management during construction will be considered as part of the site’s construction management plan.
The DS & FRA submitted provides sufficient evidence that the site can be sustainably drained and that there will be sufficient space for the drainage infrastructure proposed.
We therefore have no objection to the application provided that the Environment Agency (EA) have no objection to the discharge of Surface Water runoff to the chalk aquifer, which is within a Ground Water Source Protection Zone.
Withdrawal of our objection is subject to the conditions and informatives (at the end of this letter) being included on any permission granted.
Whilst the documentation submitted is generally good, we would highlight the following points which will need to be addressed at Discharge of Condition (DoC) stage.
Page 37 • Water quality improvement measures may be required to filter runoff before it can be discharged to ground. We will expect to see written confirmation from the EA that they have no objection to the detailed design and infiltration features envisaged.
• Whilst we accept that control of flows at source is considered the most sustainable mechanism for draining impermeable areas, this can present difficulties when passing on maintenance obligations to future householders. This should be considered in more depth at DoC stage.
• None of the trial pit locations and soakaways tests appear to have been located where infiltration features are proposed. Further GI should therefore be completed at the sites where such features will be placed – as per the BRE365 methodology. This is justified given the variation in geology that is possible, particularly in relation to superficial thickness deposits.
• Exceedance routes leaving the pond should be considered – these are currently excluded from the mapping provided.
To ensure that the above our considered, we recommend that the Local Planning Authority (LPA) apply the following conditions:
No development shall take place until a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site, both during and after construction, and based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, 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 increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.
No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
NOTES TO THE LPA / APPLICANT:
As per our position statement above, withdrawal of our objection is conditional on the EA accepting a SW discharge into a chalk aquifer, which
Page 38 appears to be located within a Zone 1 GW Source Protection Zone. You should therefore consult with the EA before determining this application.
INFORMATIVES
If the applicant wishes to offer for adoption any highways drainage to DCC, they should contact DCC Highway’s Development team at [email protected] as soon as possible to ensure that any highways drainage proposals meet DCC’s design requirements.
Our (DCC/FRM) generic guidance note regarding SW management, for the applicant’s information can be found at www.dorsetforyou.com/localfloodrisk.
8.11 Environment Agency comments: The application falls outside of our consultation checklist. Therefore, we have no comments to make.
The applicant will need to ensure that only uncontaminated water is discharged to ground, and that deep borehole soakaways are not used.
8.12 DCC Local Lead Flood Authority follow-up comments in response to EA consultation response:
We (FRM) have no in-principle objection, subject to conditions. However, on a precautionary basis Chris has flagged that the proposed use of infiltration could be subject to the EA’s approval.
The EA have confirmed that although these proposals fall outside their area of interest / screening, no contamination or infiltration at depth, via deep bore soakaways, would be permitted (by the EA).
The relevant strategy appears to be based upon the inclusion of an infiltration basin / pond, and therefore proposes shallow infiltration, acceptable to the EA. The strategy presented seems viable & deliverable.
On this basis I feel that Chris’ original position of no objection, subject to detailed design and conditions, remains relevant. You could add some qualification to the decision notice, within the notes / informative section to avoid any subsequent confusion, should the strategy change. But I don’t anticipate such a change.
I trust that this enables you to move forward with this.
8.13 DCP Planning Policy Team comments:
The site is outside of the Charminster DDB and therefore contrary to policy SUS2. However we are unable to demonstrate a five-year supply of deliverable sites and therefore para 11 of the NPPF (2018) applies.
Page 39 The site is proposed as part of a larger preferred option in the local plan review as policy DOR16. Land to the West of Charminster. The draft policy text within the preferred options consultation document is as follows:
DOR16. LAND TO THE WEST OF CHARMINSTER (PREFERRED OPTION)
i) Land to the west of Charminster is allocated for residential development to complement the growth at North Dorchester.
ii) The development will deliver in the region of 320 new homes offering a mix of tenures including affordable homes. The priority should be to meet the needs of families and the working age population.
iii) Development to the west of Charminster should be served via improved access off the A37. Appropriate highway linkages should be developed which prevent increased use of East Hill and West Hill in Charminster minimising impact on the Conservation Area.
iv) Links between the developments and nearby cycle routes must be established to facilitate ease of travel to Dorchester by alternative to the car. Enhancements to the Frome Valley Trail will be required including removing the route from the highway where possible.
v) The development will contain measures to soften the western edge of Charminster in views from the AONB.
vi) Impacts on nearby heritage assets will need to be minimised including any impact on Charminster Conservation Area and the setting of Poundbury Camp. Any residual impact would need to be clearly justified.
The preferred options consultation document has been approved for the purpose of public consultation by West Dorset District Council. Consultation will commence on Monday 13th August 2018 and will last for 8 weeks.
Prematurity: I think a prematurity argument would be very difficult to run on this site especially as we don’t have a five-year supply.
Piecemeal development: We don’t specifically mention master planning in relation to the Charminster development (but we do for North Dorchester and other places) and we acknowledge that some of the site already benefits from permission. The draft policy states that it will complement North Dorchester.
I think we understand that areas within the proposed site allocation are developable as smaller parcels or as one larger unit. Land ownership would be a particular issue to site aggregation.
8.14 DCP / WDDC Housing Enabling Team comment:
Page 40 Housing need: A review of West Dorset District Council’s current Housing Register indicates that there are over 1650 households registered as being in affordable housing need across the Council area. There are currently 71 households on the housing register with a connection to Charminster. To address the affordable housing need across the district 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 is an application for 52 residential dwellings. Local Plan policy would require 35% of the development to be for affordable housing, the homes would be split by 70% rented and 30% intermediate. The affordable housing statement proposes that 19 affordable homes be provided. This will be a slight under provision, by 0.4% of a unit, and it is acceptable for this to be made up by a financial contribution. The mix of the proposed affordable is 73.6% rent and 26% intermediate. This split is welcomed and the rented homes will help to meet the high levels of housing need.
The majority of the affordable homes are located in the North East corner of the site. Care should taken to ensure that the scheme is well designed to create a tenure blind development. This is a particular issue when most of the open market homes are larger detached properties.
The developer wants to give priority to people with a connection to the Charminster Parish. This will need to be controlled through the S106 agreement and there is no objection to this.
Conclusion: There is a need for affordable housing in Charminster and West Dorset that these homes would help to meet.
8.15 DCP Conservation Officer comments: This site lies to the west of the historic village of Charminster close to the village school and the employment site in Wanchard Lane. The site does not lie within the designated Conservation Area and is not adjacent to or affecting the setting of listed buildings. The cemetery lies to the south of the site, and a further new housing site is currently under development by the developers.
Significance: The proposals are considered to be of less than substantial significance.
Summary: The proposal seeks to continue the layout and design principles proposed in the adjoining development under construction, using local vernacular references within the palette of materials on the new dwellings, such as brick and flint banding, red brick, render and clay tiles. The site whilst screened to the north and with development to the east and south, would benefit from further screening to the west to contain the development in the landscape. [Note: This matter has been addressed by amended plans and landscape proposals]
Page 41 Recommendation: In determining the proposals due consideration has been given to Section 12 of the NPPF, Sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act and Policy ENV4 of the Local Plan.
8.16 DCP Landscape Officer comments: I have looked at the information provided [amended plans & landscape proposals]. I am happy, provided the infrastructure planting is conditioned. I have spoken Richard Burton [DCC AONB Officer] today and he has encouraged me that Phase 3 addresses open space provision.
Further to review of the Landscape Strategy Plan, Landscape Statement and the BMP I am satisfied that the application has addressed my previous comments. Providing the infrastructure planting can be secured there are no further landscape comments.
8.17 DCP Senior Tree & Landscape Officer comments: I can confirm that the revised arboricultural proposals are acceptable in my view. Of particular note is the retention of the existing mature ash tree (T36) and an agreed programme of remedial surgery and ground decompaction.
8.18 DCP Urban Design Officer comments: The proposed boundary walls and estate railings together with the landscaping and tree planting through the scheme should create an attractive public realm although I’m still unclear whether the tree planting, mown grass / meadow & ornamental planting adjacent to the carriageway will be within private gardens or the public domain. If they are in areas conveyed to residents how will future retention be ensured? Ideally they should be retained and maintained alongside other public realm planting. Native tree species proposed around the site boundaries should be extended to the street trees that run through the scheme to create a more rural character.
Plot 21 has a blank west elevation and as it is on a corner plot it should be amended to include some fenestration to add interest and provide natural surveillance, similarly, with plots 8 & 15. A small area of landscaping, including a tree is proposed between the parking areas for plots 23 & 24 however it leaves an odd shaped area of hard standing between spaces. The landscaping should therefore be extended to the road edge to enclose the spaces more and add more greenery.
The unallocated parking spaces nibbling into village green area are shown as defined spaces. However they would appear less intrusive if left as an integral part of a widened carriageway with gentler curves into the widening.
Whilst I welcome the introduction of some landscaping along the western boundary it is shown as a very regimented line of trees that stops when it gets to the SUD’s area which again is shown as an very square space. The strategic landscaping and SUD’s area needs to be designed more sensitively
Page 42 as an integrated part of the scheme rather than bolted on the edge. Corners should be soften with wider groups of trees / planting. There also does not appear to be a landscaping plan for the SUD’s area which should be provided. The plan is also light on detail regarding the boundaries with the cemetery & allotments.
Phase I proposes a 1.8m high wall along the eastern boundary of the cemetery. This was agreed as dwellings will back onto it rather than presenting a positive frontage.
Phase II proposes a similar arrangement of dwellings although the Landscape strategy plan shows existing trees and vegetation to be retained on the boundary. This existing vegetation will need infilling with new native hedge planting to provide an attractive edge and this should be indicated in the strategy. This planting should also be retained outside of private gardens, a management strip introduced and the area included in the overall management plan for the site to ensure future retention. Furthermore, the planting should be continued around the other boundaries with the cemetery and allotments to give a consistent appearance.
The plain tiles proposed for roofs should be a muted natural looking colour rather than a vibrant orange which would appear overly dominant in the landscape. Therefore a materials condition should be applied.
[Note: Amended layout and landscape plans etc. have been submitted which largely address all the originally identified urban design concerns. It has been agreed that those that remain can be addressed through applying appropriate landscape and external materials conditions].
8.19 DCP Environmental Health Officer comments: Please refer the submitted Contamination Reports to a suitably qualified Contaminated Land Consultant to comment upon and provide guidance on relevant conditions. [Note: This matter is addressed through the inclusion of appropriate planning conditions – refer Section 13]
I strongly advise that the Developer produces a Construction Environmental Method Statement for the development. This Statement must include arrangements for protecting the environment and residents from Noise, Vibration and Dust. The statement shall also include proposed provisions for the removal of any potentially hazardous waste found / generated on site. The CEMP shall be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority prior to commencement of the demolition.
Due to the close vicinity of existing residential dwellings to this site, the CEMP should have regard to the following to protect residents from nuisance:
• No bonfires to be held on site at any time.
Page 43 • Hours of construction are to be limited to
Monday – Friday 0700 – 1900
Saturday 0900 – 1300
No activity on Sundays or Bank Holidays
If there are to be any proposed deviations from these hours, please contact Environmental Protection to discuss these.
• Start up and movement of vehicles / equipment etc will be limited to 30 minutes prior to the hours of construction only.
• To minimise disturbance, broadband alarm or video shall be fitted to works vehicles instead of the conventional beepers when reversing.
• Activities which may give rise to dust shall be controlled, as far as practicable, to minimise dust emissions. This must include controlling dust from regularly trafficked road areas. Dust suppression may be achieved using water and locating equipment and machinery, away from residential areas.
• At all times, a contact telephone number shall be displayed on site for members of the public to use to raise issues. A named person will also be provided to Environmental Health in order for contact to be made should complaints be received.
• Any waste arising at the site shall be appropriately segregated and controlled prior to its removal by an appropriately licensed contractor. Any waste arising from the activity which could potentially be contaminated in any way shall also be segregated again, and removed appropriately. Environmental Health must be informed if this occurs.
• The use of any radio / amplified music system on site must be kept at a level not to cause annoyance to noise sensitive premises beyond the boundary of the site.
• Any future sub-contractors to the site shall be made aware of, and comply with any guidelines/conditions relating to site management of emissions of noise, dust, smoke, fumes etc, made in as part of the determination of this application.
• Letter drops to adjacent residents in close proximity should be considered as part of the Demolition / Construction phase to give a minimum of 48 hours notice of any exceptional activities proposed.
Page 44 8.20 DCP Community Infrastructure Levy Officer comments: This full planning application is CIL liable – estimated charge £689,100 plus index linking. Confirmation of DCLG space standards requested.
9.0 REPRESENTATIONS:
9.1 A total of 14 representations received, some of which pass further comment and objections to notification of amended plans. All the representations received at the time of preparation of this report are summarised as follows:
Overdevelopment of the village Dangerous access Misgivings over access onto A37 Think decision should be delayed until after publication of the Local Plan Increased traffic on Weir View Road already congested with school traffic & will be that much worse when 70 dwellings added from Phase 1 Phase 1 should not have been approved with sole access from Weir View No mention of a Phase 2 when Phase 1 application considered – deliberate attempt to deceive the public and skew data on traffic impact Object to access off Weir View again – traffic figures not realistic No footpath on Weir View & there is much pedestrian & vehicular traffic already generated by St Mary’s First School Extra traffic is going to put pedestrians & road users at unnecessary risk Why no access from Wanchard Lane which is suited to accommodating more traffic Access should be shared between Weir View & Wanchard Lane Cannot understand why DCC Highways object to access off Wanchard Lane which has direct access to A37, through an area sparsely populated and already serving HGV and industrial estate traffic If Wanchard Lane exit for phase 2 is considered unacceptable, then scrap Phase 2 application and resubmit a combined Phase 2 & 3 plan for approval. That way residents and councils can see the full future commitment upfront The promise of a new road and A37 junction should not be used a leverage for further development (Phase 3) Object on grounds proposal attempts to pre-empt proper planning process and delivery of appropriate infrastructure – in advance of Council’s updated Local Plan Failure to properly consider traffic implications – serious under estimation of traffic generation - quantity of very heavy vehicles increasing as are severe parking problems This road very narrow in places & school traffic/ parking is already a nightmare!
Page 45 Planning must take a broader view than this planning application & look at in the context of subsequent developments Lack of a comprehensive plan for access arrangements for total scale of development proposed The developer should make clear intentions for subsequent phases and how access and traffic problems can be properly addressed now No homes proposed that could be afforded by local people - low cost houses or apartments with very small footprints, perhaps as a terrace, would suit Charminster very well Scale of development not justified in terms of local need Village scale developments of no more than 25 homes should be planned Incentive funding for community benefits to WDDC & CPC should not unduly influence planning matters Flats not in keeping with village character Why is it OK to develop the SW side of Charminster, whilst NE remains untouched? If Strawberry Fields refused for overdevelopment of the village, why is it OK to build in the SW? Inadequate community facilities & infrastructure – limited capacity of local schools, limited local facilities in terms of shops and deteriorating standards of public transport Wyatt homes Landscape Buffer to the West of Phase 2 is of no use if further development is to be considered The change to the road surface on what will be link roads into a potential Phase 3 through the gaps in the buffer will not stop further spread in that direction With the allotment area included on the plans means they will be in constant threat of loss of this facility These are the only allotments in the Charminster village and the additional housing will increase the demand for these plots and should be safeguarded now Siting the play area adjacent to the drainage system does not seem the safest position Also this is adjacent to the allotments and will encourage trespass and possible pilfering unless secure fencing is provided The play area would be better sited to the West of the Landscape Buffer where it would be more central to this Phase and the next potential Phase and have road access and parking adjacent to it
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
Principle of development Housing land supply & the ‘tilted balance’ Sustainability Prematurity & scale of development Landscape impact
Page 46 Highway safety Design Affordable housing Flood Risk Impact of the development from nuisance from noise and smells
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:
Principle of development
11.1 Charminster is a settlement with a defined development boundary (DDB) in the adopted Local Plan (p.72). The spatial strategy in the Local Plan is set out in Policy SUS2. This has a three-tiered approach, with the main towns of Weymouth and Dorchester as the highest priority locations for new development and elsewhere the market/coastal towns, Portland and Crossways being a focus for future development at the second tier in the hierarchy. At the third tier, the policy states; “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.”
11.2 Policy SUS2 also advises that development outside of Defined Development Boundaries will be “strictly controlled” and limited to the exceptions listed in bullet point iii) of the policy. This includes affordable housing, but not open market housing. Therefore the provision of open market housing on the site is contrary to SUS2 as it lies outside of the DDB for Charminster.
11.3 However, members will be aware that currently the Council cannot demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply (HLS), its most recent monitoring putting the figure at 4.94 years. Whilst this is close to the required 5-year level and an improvement on the assessment of an Inspector in relation to an appeal inquiry for a site in Yetminster in February of this year - which set the figure at 4.63 years – it is the Councils’ position that it remains below the level required by Government guidance in the NPPF. In such a situation, paragraph 11d i) and ii) of the NPPF advises that the relevant Local Plan policies for the supply of housing are out-of-date. Policies in the Local Plan which would be out-of-date as a result of the lack of a housing land supply would include Policy SUS2. Therefore this policy does not enjoy the full statutory weight which the policies in the LP unaffected by paragraph 11 continue to enjoy.
11.4 Paragraph 11 of the NPPF advises of the ‘Presumption in favour of sustainable development’.
“For decision-taking this means: c) approving development proposals that accord with an up-to-date development plan without delay; or
d) where there are no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which are most important for determining the application are out-of-date, granting permission unless:
Page 47 i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for refusing the development proposed; or
ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole.”
In the absence of an adequate HLS, the Council has to apply this ‘tilted balance’ as set out in paragraph 11 of the NPPF to housing proposals.
11.5 The application of the paragraph 14 of the previous NPPF has resulted in a number of court cases, eventually resulting in the Supreme Court ruling of Suffolk Coastal DC v Hopkins Homes & SSCLG (2016). This confirms 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. In applying the tilted balance, any out-of-date policies are not simply disregarded. So the Council can continue to have regard to its spatial strategy, but it does not carry its full statutory weight. The weight to be given to the affected policies is a matter for planning judgement and will depend on the extent to which relevant policies fall short of providing for the five year supply of housing land, the action being taken by the local planning authority to address it, or the particular purpose of a restrictive policy – such as the protection of a "green wedge" or of a gap between settlements.
11.6 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 primary objective of the NPPF to deliver sustainable development. 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.
As the Council’s HLS has improved over the last year and some of the key allocations in the Local Plan have now reached the stage of resolutions to approve subject to completion of legal agreements, Members may consider that greater weight should be attached to SUS2 and in particular development outside the Defined Development Boundaries in the Plan. However, officers would caution against this at this stage. In particular, the Councils’ monitoring reveals it has not hit its current annual house-building target of 775 dwellings per annum since before the recession. Whilst last year’s monitoring showed considerable improvement in this figure, this is against very low levels of completions in previous years. Critically, the figure remains below 775 and therefore this ‘debt’ of housing completions continues to be added to the Council’s HLS.
11.7 The Council remains a ‘20% authority’ for the purposes of paragraph 73 of the NPPF as result. It is also likely to stay being regarded as having a record of persistent under delivery of housing for the near future whilst housing numbers remain below the annual target. Consequently the Council is likely to continue to need to factor in a 20% buffer to the housing land supply figure for a number of years to come.
11.8 Consequently, officers advise that in the circumstances it will still be necessary for
Page 48 the Local Planning Authority to continue to look to opportunities to bolster the HLS in the short-term. The likely fragility of the Councils’ HLS in the LP was foreseen by the Local Plan Inspector who stated; The overall number of dwellings derived from the various sources of supply is unlikely, however, to be sufficient to meet housing targets to the end of the plan period making it necessary for the Councils to identify further land.”
11.9 As a consequence of this tenuous position, the LP Inspector advised; It is therefore important that the Councils closely monitor the delivery of new dwellings and take advantage of every reasonable opportunity to improve their short term supply position as well as the overall amount of housing for the plan period.” [my emphasis] (para.106). Whilst the Council has already embarked on the process of reviewing the LP, this is at a relative early stage and therefore carries limited weight in the determination of this application. This is explored in more detail in the ‘Prematurity’ section below.
11.10 Consequently, there remains a clear need in your officer’s opinion not to continue to apply ‘full rigour’ to Policy SUS2 and to look for opportunities to bolster the housing supply where these are consistent with the remaining policies in the Local Plan, in particular Policy INT1 which promotes sustainable development. In this regard the site is adjoins the Phase 1 Wyatt Homes development presently under construction, which itself adjoins a settlement with a DBB in the Local Plan. Therefore the Local Plan regards Charminster as a sustainable location for further development where this takes place in rural areas, subject to this being at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement as advised in Policy SUS2.
11.11 In the circumstances, it is considered the Council should regard the site as a sustainable location for further development. In addition, the Council’s Preferred Options consultation document on the review of the LP – explored in greater depth in the ‘Prematurity’ section below – identifies the land concerned as part of the options for the long-term growth of Dorchester, the highest priority for development in the current spatial strategy. This reinforces the view that the site is in a sustainable location.
Principle of Development - Conclusion
11.12 The assessment of the merits of the scheme against the remaining policies in the LP is set out below. However, in respect of whether the development of the site should be resisted in principle, where the Council’s HLS remains below 5 years, full statutory weight cannot be applied to Policy SUS2. As the Council therefore needs to consider additional housing sites not originally envisaged for development by the adopted Local Plan, preference should be given to the most clearly sustainable locations.
11.13 The site is a logical extension to the current Phase 1 Wyatt Homes development under construction, on the edge of a village with a DDB. It may be viewed as a ‘rounding off’ of development given its relationship with existing and new development currently being constructed. It also is in such proximity to Dorchester that the Council has proposed its development as part of the more extensive emerging New Policy: DOR16. LAND TO THE WEST OF CHARMINSTER (PREFERRED OPTION) for the long-term growth of the County town itself.
Page 49 Consequently the site appears to be precisely the sort of “reasonable opportunity” to improve short-term housing supply envisaged by the Local Plan Inspector. Importantly, it is also a site clearly capable of early delivery supported by a reputable local housebuilder already on site with their Phase 1 development. On this basis, the principle of the development of the site is considered acceptable subject to its consideration against the remainder of the policies in the plan.
Prematurity
11.14 As noted above, the application site is part of a wider area of land identified in the Preferred Options document currently out for consultation, as emerging New Policy: DOR16. LAND TO THE WEST OF CHARMINSTER (PREFERRED OPTION).
11.15 Consequently the LP review is at a relatively early stage and only limited weight can be attached to this document. A question to be addressed as regards the determination of this application is whether the development of this particular parcel of land; in advance of the Council progressing the review of the Local Plan at this stage, may be prejudicial to the review process as a whole and the proper planning of the area? In effect whether the development of the site is premature in the circumstances.
11.16 The Government’s position on prematurity is clearly set out in the National Planning Practice Guidance [Paragraphs 48 – 50 inclusive – referenced in this report above in Section 5]. The NPPG’s position is that in circumstances where the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF applies, arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than where it is clear that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits.
11.17 This might suggest that this is an ordinary material consideration which should be assessed in the usual way. However, the NPPG goes on to explain in paragraph 49 that “arguments that an application is premature are unlikely to justify a refusal of planning permission other than in the limited circumstances where both: a) the development proposed is so substantial, or its cumulative effect would be so significant, that to grant permission would undermine the plan-making process by predetermining decisions about the scale, location or phasing of new development that are central to an emerging plan; and b) the emerging plan is at an advanced stage but is not yet formally part of the development plan for the area.”
Paragraph 50 further clarifies this point by stating: “Refusal of planning permission on grounds of prematurity will seldom be justified where a draft plan has yet to be submitted for examination; or – in the case of a neighbourhood plan – before the end of the local planning authority publicity period on the draft plan. Where planning permission is refused on grounds of prematurity, the local planning authority will need to indicate clearly how granting permission for the development concerned would prejudice the outcome of the plan-making process.”
Page 50 11.18 As the Local Plan review is at a relatively early stage and yet to be submitted for examination, then the NPPG’s position is clear on this matter and an attempt to resist the scheme as premature in advance of the LP could not be justified. Furthermore, it would be necessary for the LPA to demonstrate that the wider DOR16. Preferred Option is central to the plan review. However, of course this emerging new policy is still at the consultation stage. So no decision has been taken whether to formally allocate this site or any of the adjoining areas of land as part of the Councils’ emerging/new spatial strategy.
11.19 At 52 dwellings, the application before members represents a small proportion of the indicative capacity of the more extensive DOR16. Preferred Option site. The emerging new Policy states at DOR16:
“ ii) The development will deliver in the region of 320 new homes offering a mix of tenures including affordable homes. The priority should be to meet the needs of families and the working age population.”
It is conceivable that if the Authority was drawing up a masterplan for these sites either as separate allocations or in combination that this particular site would be an option for part of the wider infrastructure provision to deliver these comprehensive allocations. This was a matter raised with the applicants in the Council’s pre- application advice on Phase 1, particularly with regards to possible highway links and education provision. However, without an existing commitment to these sites as part of the Local Plan, it would be hugely difficult for the LPA to show this was anything other than speculation on the Council’s part. It should be noted that infrastructure contributions both in the form of CIL and the recommended requirements of the Section 106 Agreement above will continue to apply to this scheme, as it has for Wyatt Homes Phase 1 development.
Prematurity - Conclusion
11.20 The Government’s position on the use of prematurity to refuse an application is clear and limits the situations where such an argument could apply.
11.21 The current application before members is a relatively modest part of the wider strategic options being considered and this limits the prospect that it could be argued its development for residential use at this time would be prejudicial to the wider allocations coming forward. Due to the relatively early stage that the Local Plan review is at, the Councils’ Policy Officer advice is that this is a scenario where a prematurity argument could not be successfully defended.
Scale of Development
11.22 Part of the criteria in Policy SUS2 is that where development takes place in the settlements in the rural ‘3rd tier’ of the spatial strategy, this will “take place at an appropriate scale to the size of the settlement.” The previous Issues and Options document advises that the current population of the village is around 1500 with a further 1500 in Charlton Down. The two settlements lie within the Charminster parish and have common facilities such as the first school.
Page 51 11.23 This makes Charminster already the largest village in the 3rd tier on its own and when taken as a population for the parish as whole, this is around the size of some of the settlements in the second tier such as Crossways and Beaminster. In assessing whether the current proposal is at an appropriate scale, regard is had to the cumulative position and existing commitments such as the applicant’s Phase 1 approval for 70 dwellings at Charminster Farm which is under construction. Taken together, this would be an approximate population increase of around 220 or a little over 12%. This would still be a significant increase, notwithstanding the likely build period of both schemes.
11.24 It is also notable that the recently refused outline planning application for up to 120 dwellings on the eastern side of Charminster, south of Westleaze is now at appeal with a planning inquiry likely to be scheduled at the end of this year. It is also a distinguishing feature that the Westleaze appeal site is not identified within Council’s Preferred Options proposals, currently out on consultation.
11.25 The Local Plan does not set any figure for the level of growth at the 3rd tier of the spatial strategy, nor advise as to whether a particular percentage level of growth represents the “appropriate scale” of growth. There is therefore a need to make this assessment on a case-by-case basis bearing in mind the settlement concerned. In this respect, if additional sites are to be considered in the rural areas, then it would be preferable to direct these to the largest villages with potentially greater capacity to accept larger developments by virtue of their range of existing facilities and services. In the case of Charminster, its proximity to Dorchester is also a factor with its existing links to the county town including cycleways and more frequent bus services than the majority of rural villages.
Scale of Development - Conclusion
11.26 It is noted that the Parish Council have specific concerns over the current scheme in terms of access arrangements and levels of traffic on Weir View, whilst the applicant’s Phase 1 Charminster Farm scheme was supported by the PC. As will be seen from the remainder of the report, the assessment of the remaining material considerations has not produced an overriding harm in the technical matters. Therefore, to resist the scheme on a failure to comply with this part of Policy SUS2, it would be necessary to show that; a) the scheme was not an appropriate scale and b) the harm from this demonstrably outweighed the benefits of the scheme.
11.27 Had the remaining technical assessment produced significant harm in relation to the remaining material considerations, this might provide stronger grounds for arguing the scheme cumulatively was not an appropriate scale. However, this would be contradictory to the Council’s emerging spatial strategy as now evidenced in its Preferred Options consultation document. The proximity of the village to Dorchester is also a factor as well as its existing size. Officers would expect that where a development breached the “appropriate scale” test, this would more obviously reveal itself through other aspects of harm identified in the assessment of the material considerations. There are difficulties in articulating that the scheme is not of an appropriate scale in the absence of other substantial harm. Bearing in mind Policy SUS2 does not currently attract its full statutory weight for the reasons set out in 11.4 – 11.13 above, it is considered that this does not provide a reason to refuse the application.
Page 52
Landscape Impact
11.28 The site lies within the Cerne & Piddle Valleys and Chalk Downland Landscape Character Area in the Council’s adopted SPD. In addition, the site is part of a Land of Local Landscape Importance (LLLI) designation from the previous 2006 Local Plan. The previous LLLI policy was not carried forward into the current LP but was instead replaced by Policy ENV3. This policy proposes working with local communities developing a ‘Green Infrastructure Network’ and the LP confirms ENV3 will apply to the LLLIs from the previous plan and advises that; “Development that would cause harm to the green infrastructure network or undermine the reasons for an area’s inclusion within the network will not be permitted unless clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
11.29 The proposals are supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment and this has been considered by the County Council’s AONB Senior Officer and DCP’s Landscape Officer. The principal concern has been the impact of the proposed development on the setting and long distance views from the AONB. As noted previously, the development site at closest is within 800m of the AONB boundary, to the south and west across the Frome River valley. However, publicly available views of the proposed development within the AONB would generally affect receptors at greater distances of approx. 1.5 – 2.5 km. Views of the development are available from the southwest, across a broad arc that ranges from elevated ground south of Bradford Peverell, across to Poundbury. Publicly accessibly locations in this area that would be affected comprise both public footpaths and rural roads, with several locations being included in the assessment accompanying the application. The application is particularly likely to affect the outlook from the AONB from elevated land to the south of Bradford Peverell, making the application’s approach to landscaping along its western boundary an important consideration in terms of conserving and enhancing the setting of the designated area.
11.30 The applicant has responded to previous landscape impact concerns and amended their proposal to incorporate a substantial new ‘landscape buffer’ along the length of the site’s western boundary to mitigate the proposed developments impact on the setting of the AONB. The landscape strategy now proposes a total of 155 metres of native trees and an understorey of native shrubs along the western boundary of the site. 115 metres of this landscape buffer will be 10m wide, with this section being that which is most closely associated with the edge of the housing plots. The proposed buffer is now confirmed to be within land that is under the ownership of the applicant and accordingly the council is in a position to secure this ‘strategic/structural’ planting by planning condition. As a consequence the revised landscape strategy and clarification concerning landownership have substantively addressed the concerns of the County Council AONB team and DCP’S Landscape Officer, subject to appropriate planning conditions.
Landscape Impact – Conclusions
Page 53
11.31 The assessment is that the scheme will have limited localised adverse landscape impacts in the urbanising of this open field on the western village edge which displays locally distinctive characteristics. However, the conclusions of your landscape advisor and County AONB Team are that these impacts are both moderate and local in nature being limited to a small number of receptors. As the impacts are not considered to be either significant or wide-ranging, it is considered that they do not fail the test in Policy ENV1 that “Development that significantly adversely affects the character or visual quality of the local landscape or seascape will not be permitted.” In effect the impacts are those which would ordinarily follow from the development of a greenfield site on the village fringe. To seek to resist the proposals on landscape impact grounds there would need to be additional harm above and beyond this impact such as the loss of a particular valued landscape or a statutory designation in order to successfully demonstrate that the impacts were ‘significant’ in terms of Policy ENV1. Ultimately the conclusion is that the scheme complies with Policies ENV1 & ENV10 in terms of its landscape impact.
Highway Safety
11.32 The impact of the development taking its only vehicular access through the applicant’s Phase 1 site and off Weir View is a major concern running through the 3rd party responses and objections.
The applicant has responded in the following terms:
“In respect of the request from Charminster Parish Council to consider the provision of an additional vehicular access to the site from Wanchard Lane, our transport engineers, Awcock Ward Partnership, have discussed this with Dorset County Council. However, this approach would potentially increase traffic flows along Wanchard Lane which is a relatively narrow rural route to the west of the site. There is also a sharp bend in the road with limited forward visibility at Wrackleford where Wanchard Lane continues into Sodern Lane, and visibility for emerging traffic at the junction of Sodern Lane and the A37 is also restricted. It has been confirmed that the potential highway safety issues that could arise as a result of additional traffic using this route would be a concern to the local Highway Authority, and therefore a vehicular link to Wanchard Lane has not been included within the development proposals. The proposed access to the application site through the Charminster Farm development that is currently being implemented is considered to provide a safe and suitable arrangement.
If further land to the west of the application site were to come forward for development in the future then this would generate the opportunity for a new junction to be provided on the A37, both to serve the new development and to open up a new through route to the A37 from Wanchard Lane. This would allow existing traffic to avoid the narrow lanes and existing A37/Sodern Lane junction where there is limited forward visibility, and also provide an alternative route to the A37 for traffic that currently uses the Wanchard
Page 54 Lane/A352 junction in the centre of Charminster. The development of land to the west of the application site in the future is therefore the point at which a link to Wanchard Lane could be beneficial in highways terms.”
11.33 This Phase 2 application is supported by a transport statement and travel plan. The TA concludes that the location has already been accepted as sustainable due to the findings of the Transport Assessment for the committed development (Phase1) to the south to the proposed site.
11.34 The traffic impact assessment completed for the committed development access junction, the Weir View / A352 junction, the Weir View / A37 junction and the A352 / A37 junction indicates that they are all expected to operate within theoretical capacity at the 2018 & 2023 baseline traffic conditions, and with the addition of Phase 2 development traffic.
11.35 The TA states that the worst-case impact of residual car borne trips has been robustly assessed, and has been demonstrated to be accommodated within the local road network.
11.36 The internal development highway layout has been developed using the principles set out within the latest Department for Transport Guidance: Manual for Streets. The principal access roads within the development are 5.5m in width with 2.0m footways on either side.
11.37 The proposed development scheme incorporates secure cycle parking and a Framework Travel Plan setting out a package of measures to promote the use of sustainable modes of transport with a view to achieving a modal shift away from the private car. The applicant’s TA concludes that the existing and proposed highway network would satisfactorily accommodate the additional traffic arising from the proposed residential development without resulting in any severe impacts, and therefore the traffic impact of the scheme is considered to be acceptable given the requirements of the NPPF.
11.38 The proposals have been considered by the Highways Authority. In addition, the prospect of delivering a strategic highway route as part of any future major Local Plan allocation to the north of Dorchester has been given due regard. In conclusion this ‘Phase 2’ scheme would not unacceptably compromise the ability to deliver this at a later date. There will need to be further work on the details of the highway works before these can be agreed by DCC but overall the Highway Authority has not raised objections to this application stating:
11.39 The County Highway Authority considers that the proposal does not present a material harm to the transport network or to highway safety and consequently has NO OBJECTION, but recommends” …. specified standard highway and transport plan conditions and informatives.
Highway Safety – Conclusion:
11.40 The Transport Assessment sets out the highway impacts arising from the scheme. In this instance, the evidence in the document is that there are
Page 55 limited impacts on the highway network arising from a further 52 dwellings on the site and this is accepted by the HA, notwithstanding the concerns expressed by the PC and 3rd parties. The conclusion of the Highway Authority is that there is sufficient capacity in the highway network to accommodate these additional traffic flows, even at peak times. It should be noted that the applicant asserts these are worst-case scenarios which do not make allowances for the mitigation measures in the proposed Travel Plan which the HA seeks to be a condition of any approval.
11.41 To refuse a scheme on highway grounds the Council must be able to quantify that harm and moreover show that there are no mitigation measures which would address this impact. The information before members is that the highway network can satisfactorily accommodate the proposed increase in traffic and thereby the scheme complies with the tests in Policy COM7; in particular that the volume of traffic likely to be generated can be accommodated on the local highway network without exacerbating community severance and the residual cumulative impacts on the efficiency of the transport network are not likely to be severe. Thereby the scheme also complies with the test in COM7 not to have a severe detrimental effect on road safety. For these reasons, no objections are raised on highways grounds.
Design & Layout - Impact on the visual amenity of the area, the landscape character and historic environment
11.42 The village of Charminster has developed around a historic heart, with development generally extending along the Frome Valley and Roman route. The village has however been subject to considerable development over the years and the plan form of the village subsequently has a nucleated core with development extending in a linear form along North Street, and with modern ribbon development to the east and west.
11.43 The scheme has been considered by your Conservation Officer and their response reported in full in paragraph 8.15. In summary this site lies to the west of the historic village of Charminster close to the village school and the employment site in Wanchard Lane. The site does not lie within the designated Conservation Area and is not adjacent to or affecting the setting of listed buildings. The cemetery lies to the south of the site, and a further new housing site is currently under development by the developers. The proposal seeks to continue the layout and design principles proposed in the adjoining development under construction, using local vernacular references within the palette of materials on the new dwellings, such as brick and flint banding, red brick, render and clay tiles. The site whilst screened to the north and with development to the east and south would benefit from further screening to the west to contain the development in the landscape. [Note: This matter has been addressed by amended plans and landscape proposals]. Consequently the proposals are considered to be of less than substantial significance having due consideration to the NPPF, Sections 66 and 72 of the 1990 Act and Policy ENV4 of the Local Plan.
Urban Design
Page 56
11.44 The development proposals comprise several different house types which have been specially designed for the site. The external appearance of these dwellings and materials to be used in the treatment of boundaries and hard surfacing is detailed on the plans and in the Design and Access Statement (DAS).
11.45 The proposed materials include brick, render, flint and some reconstituted stone work. Such materials have been used at the Charminster Phase 1 site. The DAS confirms that local materials will be utilised within the development to respect the character of the village and to reinforce local distinctiveness whilst reflecting the identity of the village.
11.46 The original development layout for Phase 2 showed two ‘spur’ estate roads off the principal access route into the site; all to an adoptable standard and taken through to the edge of the site’s western boundary. Visually this clearly signalled the intention that these roads would form two new access routes to an adoptable standard opening up the existing arable land to further development i.e. a potential ‘Phase 3’. It also meant Phase 2 would appear ‘unfinished’.
11.47 However, at this stage of the evolution of the new local plan, the Council has just launched the consultation on Preferred Options which include Policy DOR16. LAND TO THE WEST OF CHARMINSTER (PREFERRED OPTION). At the moment there can be no certainty or commitment that the wider proposed DOR16. site will be allocated for future development. Therefore it is considered important the present Phase 2 proposal, which comprises a relatively small area in the centre of larger DOR16. Preferred Option, should be designed in a way that is ‘self sufficient’ in terms of its strategic / structural landscape setting and design.
11.48 The applicant has addressed this matter in their revised layout, design and landscape proposals which triggered a further round of neighbour notification and consultation. The principal design changes incorporating the following: A robust strategic / structural landscape buffer to be delivered on land within the applicant’s control on the site’s western boundary Redesigning the two ‘spur’ shared surface roads between plots 16/17 and 14/15; adjacent to the site’s western boundary, ‘downgrading’ them to ‘private drives’ / cul-de-sacs; thus avoiding an ‘over- engineered’ highway appearance Notably the design allows the reservation of sufficient land at the margins to allow the future upgrading of these ‘spur roads’ to potentially form future estate roads to an adoptable standard, should land to the west come forward as a ‘Phase 3’ development Various detailed internal road layout / geometry, visitor parking, dwelling, open space, highway and urban design consultee recommendations Repositioning of unallocated parking spaces to address highways comments. Visitor parking softened with additional landscaping – reflected in
Page 57 visitor parking plan. Plot 38 re-configured to provide active frontage along the northern edge of the site. Revised elevation & floor plans for Blandford & Buttercup house types The parking for plots 32-37 re-designed to provide more amenity space for the flats and a better location for the bin and bike store. Revised coloured street scene for consistency Revised elevations and floor plans for plots 38-39 Revised elevations and layout for Plots 33-37 (Flat block A and Flat Over Garage [FOG]), including: adjustments to meet national space standards, introduction of a barn hip roof with lowered eaves and flat roofed dormers, porch detailing revised, corbeling added, buttresses added to FOG side elevation Adjustments to footways and turning head serving plots 5-9.
Fire Vehicle Tracking (safety audit) layout amended in accordance
with all above changes.
With regards to the request from Charminster Parish Council for the provision
of play space on site, the applicant states:
“We reviewed potential on-site locations and recommend the most
appropriate location for the provision of play space is in the south western
corner of the site, adjacent to the proposed Sustainable Drainage System.
There is considered to be sufficient space within in this part of the site to
provide play provision, without hindrance to the proposed soakaways. We
would suggest that a natural approach to play provision in this location would
be appropriate e.g. timber play, boulders and mounds. Such provision for play
space can be secured via the Section 106 agreement or through a detailed
landscape condition. We trust this approach is reasonable.”
Design & Layout Conclusion
The density of the scheme at approximately 21 dwellings per hectare (gross) 11.49 is relatively low and appropriate for this edge of village location. The key
landscape features are shown for retention and there are links through to a
feature area of open space retaining a veteran Ash tree near the centre of the
site. It is now considered that the revised scheme shows that 52 dwellings
can be accommodated on this site whilst complying with the relevant policies
in the Local Plan such as ENV10, ENV11, ENV12, ENV15, ENV16 and the
advice in the adopted Design & Sustainable Development Planning
Guidelines SPD, together with the NPPF.
Affordable Housing
11.50 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 18 dwellings across the scheme. Policy HOUS1 seeks these to be provided
Page 58 in a tenure split of 70% social / affordable rent and a maximum of 30% intermediate affordable housing.
11.51 The Council’s Housing Enabling Team has evidenced substantial unmet need for affordable housing in the district set out in their consultation response. The provision of 18 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 below.
11.52 This full application demonstrates that it can deliver a fully policy compliant on site affordable housing contribution. Therefore subject to completion of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the AH provision as set out in the recommendation in 15.1 below, the development complies with Policy HOUS1.
Flood Risk
11.53 The application site falls within a low flood risk area (flood zone 1) and although in an area of known surface water flooding, the Technical Engineer has confirmed that the surface water flood risk for this site is deemed to be very low. The development of the site would nevertheless increase the amount of impermeable areas which would
increase any risks of flooding and it is critical that appropriate methods
are employed in order to deal with surface water appropriately. Concern has also been raised in respect of drainage from nearby occupiers situated on lower ground to the site.
11.54 The developer proposes to use soakaways in order to discharge water from the site. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) includes details of soakaway testing which have confirmed that the site is underlain by permeable sub-soils which are considered suitable for the application of soakaway features.
11.55 No objection is raised in relation to the proposed drainage strategy from the Technical Engineer at this stage. Further details of a fully worked up drainage scheme, including peak flows and surface water run-off, will however be necessary as part of any reserved matters application to ensure the proposed development would not have a significant adverse impact in respect of surface water flooding, and this should form a condition on any consent. However, it is considered that the proposed development could be carried out without significantly impacting flood risk within the vicinity and without causing issues to adjacent properties situated on lower ground to the application site.
In addition the site is within an area requiring consultation with Wessex Water
Page 59 (WW) in relation to foul sewers. WW’s concerns are in relation to the groundwaters and the risk of flooding to existing sewers. Policy COM10 advises that development will not be permitted where the problems associated with the lack of necessary utilities service infrastructure, including drainage, sewerage, sewage treatment and water supply cannot be overcome. WW’s recommendations are to ensure a sealed foul water system, separate from any surface water provision. This is included as a condition below. Wessex Water state that water supply to the site can be made.
Impact on protected species
A phase 1 habitat survey has been submitted as part of the application together with a biodiversity mitigation plan. Data records from Dorset Environmental Record Centre identified no records of protected species or sites of Nature Conservation Interest in the immediate area. The survey recommended a mitigation strategy which is incorporated into the BMP. The BMP has not been certified by Dorset County Council, but the habitat survey indicated a low impact from the development on protected species, and it is considered that the BMP is sufficient to safeguard against the impacts of the development on protected species, having regard to Natural England's advice, this forms a condition to the recommended consent..
Land contamination
A desk top study has been carried out aimed at investigating ground conditions and pollutants. No high risks of historical or current land uses were identified at the site which could have resulted in contamination save for the use of the current temporary construction compound. As such any low to medium land contamination issues can be satisfactorily addressed through the application of appropriate safeguarding conditions addressing any unexpected land contamination discovered at the development implementation stage.
Impact of the development from nuisance from noise and smells
A noise report has been submitted which has had regard to the commercial noise emanating from the adjacent industrial estate and from Charminster Depot of Dorset County Council Highways Authority. An assessment under BS4142 has been provided and this concludes that due to the distance of the depot from the proposed housing scheme, the depot would have no adverse impact on the proposed development. However, the assessment concludes that during limited times of the day there would be a risk of noise nuisance from Charminster Farm industrial Estate if mitigation measures were not included. During the monitoring of the site the report found that noise
Page 60 emissions were intermittent and of a low volume, but with the potential to adversely impact occupants of properties in close proximity to the estate. Typical noises included occasional impacts and use of hydraulic tools in the Charminster Garage, fork lift trucks manoeuvring in the centre of the estate, and the handling of scaffolding poles.
The Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the current application. However, It is recommended that an acoustic screen be run along the remaining perimeter of the industrial estate.
Details of the noise attenuation fencing submitted under the application for the Industrial Estate have been provided as part of this application and this can form a condition on any consent. On this basis, the proposed residential development is considered to be compatible with the adjacent industrial estate uses so that future occupiers would not be significantly compromised by the adjacent uses.
12. SUMMARY
12.1 Policy INT1 of the adopted Local Plan relates to presumption in favour of sustainable development. Furthermore it advises that where policies are out- of-date at the time of decision, regard will be had to the following; 1. the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan; 2. whether specific policies in that National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should be restricted; and 3. whether the adverse impacts of granting permission could significantly outweigh the benefits.
12.2 So whilst Policy INT1 reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development in the NPPF, there is an additional test to apply the strategic objectives in the LP where policies such as SUS2 are out-of-date by virtue of the current housing land supply. There are eight strategic objectives (SO) set out in the Local Plan, not all of which are directly applicable to the scheme at the outline stage. Where they are applicable, they are assessed below.
Support the local economy to provide opportunities for high quality, better paid jobs
Whilst the scheme creates short-term construction work, overall the scheme would be neutral against this strategic objective.
Meet local housing needs for all as far as is possible
As the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing, the development would contribute to meeting wider housing needs across the plan area and needs to be given due weight as a result. The issue of whether
Page 61 the proposed development would meet particular local housing need in particular is set out in paragraphs 13.24 – 13.28 above. This clarifies the difficulties of asserting that a particular level of growth is excessive without being able to quantify the harm that would arise as a result. In relation to the particular circumstances of the case before members, it is considered the scheme meets this objective.
Support sustainable, safe and healthy communities with accessibility to a range of services and facilities
12.3 The LP regards Charminster as a sustainable location for further development, applying the spatial strategy in Policy SUS2. Where the Authorities cannot demonstrate an adequate HLS, it is preferable to look to the most sustainable opportunities to bolster that supply. Therefore sites adjoining existing DDBs without unacceptable environmental impacts are likely to be preferable to more remote sites. The impacts of new development on infrastructure provision are intended to be mitigated by the provision of contributions under the adopted CIL-charging regime. New development thereby supports the retention and development of existing facilities and services and contributes to the ongoing vitality and viability of settlements in line with the spatial strategy. The scheme is therefore considered to comply with this objective.
Protect and enhance the outstanding natural and built environment, including its landscape, biodiversity and geodiversity, and the local distinctiveness of places within the area – this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are particularly sensitive to change
12.4 There are potential impacts to both landscape character and heritage assets as a result of the development as noted by the relevant consultees and their views are given due regard in this balancing exercise. The position of these consultees is notwithstanding the impacts identified, there are opportunities for appropriate mitigation to address these impacts, much of which would need to be addressed during the reserved matters stage. The critical test at this outline stage is whether the impacts noted above significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. The response of the relevant consultees is that these environmental impacts would not breach that test such that the application should be refused. Securing of appropriate mitigation would result in neutral environmental impacts. There would also be biodiversity benefits in securing the approved Biodiversity Mitigation Plan. The scheme thereby complies with the objectives to protect the outstanding natural and built environment.
Reduce vulnerability to the impacts of climate change, both by minimising the potential impacts and by adapting to those that are inevitable– this will be the over-riding objective in those areas of the plan which are at highest risk
12.5 The development complies with Policy ENV5 in directing development away from areas at highest risk of flooding. The scheme is accompanied by a
Page 62 drainage strategy which indicates there is a technical solution to meet the surface water run-off impacts of the development and this has been accepted by the LLFA. Drainage schemes are required to demonstrate a capacity to accommodate a 1 in 100 year event plus 40% for climate change under Government guidance. Much of the environmental quality of the proposed dwellings is a matter for Building Regs. However, there are no grounds to conclude at this outline stage that dwellings on the site could not be built to high environmental standards.
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
12.6 As a sustainable location for further development in the Local Plan, development on the site offers the opportunity for residents to meet part of their day-to-day needs without making private car journeys. Overall the scheme would plainly meet this objective.
12.7 Consequently against the strategic objectives applicable to this full planning application, it is considered that the development makes positive or neutral contributions to meeting these objectives. There are no particular policies in the remainder of the LP or the NPPF which indicate development of this site should be restricted. Finally the consultation exercise and the assessment of the merits of the scheme is not considered to have demonstrated any adverse impacts that significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of development in a sustainable location and the bolstering of the Council’s housing land supply.
12.8 It is therefore considered that the proposals comply with the economic, social and environmental strands of sustainable development and the proposals are in accordance with Local Plan Policy INT1. In light of the tilted balance and thereby reduced weight applicable to Policy SUS2 in light of the Councils’ current housing land provision, it is considered that the benefits of additional housing outweighs the conflict with Policy SUS2 in this instance. Notably the proposed development is also fully policy compliant in terms of the provision of much needed affordable housing. Furthermore, without an overriding harm to warrant refusal, the scheme should be supported.
13. Recommendation
Delegate to the Head of Planning subject to completion of a legal agreement to secure: 1. 35% of the units as affordable housing (including residual 0.4% balance as a financial contribution) 2. Provision of a areas of public open space and its maintenance 3. Provision and maintenance of land reserved for the Sustainable Drainage Scheme
and then APPROVE subject to the conditions below:
Page 63
1. 3YRFUL
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: To ensure early delivery of this housing site given the Council’s present lack of an identified 5 year housing land supply, as encouraged at Paragraph 76 of the NPPF. This condition is also required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).
2. Plans list
HT.AH4-B-3.E REV A HOUSE TYPE - AH4-B-3 HT.ALYLE.E REV A HOUSE TYPE - AYLESBURY HT.CASP.E REV A HOUSE TYPE - CASPIAN HT.CHIL-1.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - CHILTON COTTAGE HT.CHIL-2.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - CHILTON COTTAGE HT.CLYDE-1.CE REV P1 HOUSE TYPE - CLYDESDALE HT.CLYDE-2.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - CLYDESDALE HT.HAC-B.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - 2B4P (AFFORDABLE) HT.HAD-B.CE REV A OUSE TYPE - HAD-B HT.JERS.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - JERSEY HT.KNIG.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE KNIGHTON HT.MERI-1.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - MERINO HT.MERI-2.CE REV A HOUSE TYPE - MERINO P.28-29.CE REV A PLOTS 28-29 P.38-39.CE REV A PLOTS 38-39 HT.AH4-B-3.P REV A HOUSE TYPE - AH4-B-3 GROUND & FIRST HT.ALYE.P REV A HOUSE TYPE - AYLESBURY GROUND & FIRST HT.CASP.P REV A HOUSE TYPE - CASPIAN GROUND & FIRST HT.CHIL.P REV A HOUSE TYPE CHILTON COTTAGE GROUND & FIRST HT.CLYD.P REV A. HOUSE TYPE - CLYDESDALE GROUND & FIRST HT.HAC-B.P REV A HOUSE TYPE - HAC-B(AFFORDABLE) GROUND & FIRST HT.HAD-B.P REV A HOUSE TYPE - HAD-B GROUND & FIRST HT.JERS.P REV A HOUSE TYPE JERSEY GROUND & FIRST HT.KNIG.P REV A HOUSE TYPE KNIGHTON GROUND & FIRST HT.MERI.P REV A HOUSE TYPE - MERINO GROUND & FIRST P.28-29.P REV A PLOTS 28-29 GROUND & FIRST FLOOR PHL- 101 REV A PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY LAYOUT ( SHEET 1) PHL- 102 REV A PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY LAYOUT ( SHEET 2) PHL- 104 REV A PRELIMINARY HIGHWAY PROFILES GAR.01.PE REV A SINGLE GARAGE GAR.02.PE REV A HT.BLAN.CE B (AMENDED) HOUSE TYPE BLANDFORD HT.BUTT.CE B (AMENDED) HOUSE TYPE BUTTERCUP P38-39.CE B (AMENDED) PLOTS 38-39 - ELEVATIONS
Page 64 HT.BUTT.P B (AMENDED) HOUSE TYPE BUTTERCUP – GROUND & FIRST P38-39.P B (AMENDED) PLOTS 38-39 GROUND & FIRST FLOOR LP01 B (AMENDED) LOCATION PLAN CSE01 REV B (AMENDED) COLOURED STREET ELEVATIONS CSL01 REV B (AMENDED) COLOURED SITE LAYOUT DBML01 B (AMENDED) MATERIALS LAYOUT FB-A.CPEB (AMENDED) FLAT BLOCK A - COLOURED FLOOR PLANS FT01 B (AMENDED) FIRE TRACKING LAYOUT HT.BLAN.P B (AMENDED) HOUSE TYPE BLANDFORD - GROUND & FIRST RL01 B (AMENDED) REFUSE LAYOUT SL01 B (AMENDED) SITE LAYOUT VPP01 B (AMENDED) VISITOR PARKING PLAN
HIGHWAYS
3. Estate Road Construction (adopted or private)
Before the development is occupied or utilised the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Number WYAT170809 CSL01 RevB 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.
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
4. Prior to the commencement of development, a Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Construction Management Plan and shall not be altered without the prior written approval of the Local Planning Authority.
REASON: In the interests of the living conditions of nearby occupiers in accordance with Policy ENV16 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
DRAINAGE
5. No development shall take place until a detailed and finalised surface water management scheme for the site, both during and after construction, and based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, 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
Page 65 the development is completed.
REASON: To prevent increased risk of flooding and to improve and protect water quality.
6. No development shall take place until details of maintenance and management of the surface water sustainable drainage scheme have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a plan for the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme throughout its lifetime.
REASON: To ensure future maintenance of the surface water drainage system and to prevent increased risk of flooding.
FOUL DRAINAGE
7. The development hereby permitted shall be constructed so as to provide a sealed system of foul water drainage.
REASON – to prevent groundwater infiltration into the foul sewer network affecting service levels to public sewer systems.
CONTAMINATED LAND
8. Submission of Remediation Scheme Before 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 must be prepared, and is subject to the approval in writing of 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: 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).
9. Implementation of Approved Remediation Scheme The approved remediation scheme must be carried out in accordance with its terms prior to the commencement of development other than that required to carry out remediation, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Local Planning Authority must be given two weeks written notification of commencement of
Page 66 the remediation scheme works. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme, a verification report (referred to in PPS23 as a validation report) that demonstrates the effectiveness of the remediation carried out must be produced, and is subject to the approval in writing of the Local Planning Authority.
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).
10. Reporting of Unexpected Contamination 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 shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Following completion of measures identified in the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
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).
MINERALS SAFEGUARDING
11. The development hereby permitted shall not commence until a mineral resources method statement has been submitted to, and agreed in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in strict accordance with the approved method statement.
The statement shall set out: a) details of the method of investigation proposed to assess the amount, type/quality and extent of the mineral resource, including the location, depth and number of any boreholes; and b) a programme for extraction of mineral reserves identified by (a) which sets out the amount, type/quality, extent and phasing of mineral extraction.
Extraction of minerals will not be required where the Local Planning Authority is satisfied that: • the identified reserves are of such limited quality or quantity that the cost of removing them would not be justified; and/or • it is not environmentally feasible; and/or • it would prevent or render unviable the implementation of the development hereby permitted.
REASON: To ensure that the mineral resource on the site is safeguarded in accordance with Policy SG1 (Mineral Safeguarding
Page 67 Area) of the Bournemouth, Dorset & Poole Minerals Strategy.
12. The approved certificated Biodiversity Management Plan accompanying this application shall be fully implemented in accordance with the details contained therein.
REASON: To mitigate identified impact on wildlife and habitats in accordance with Policy ENV2. of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
Prior to occupation of any dwelling, or other such timescale that is agreed in writing, details of a Landscape & Ecology Mitigation Plan (LEMP) shall be submitted to and approved by the LPA in writing. 13. Thereafter the LEMP shall be fully implemented in accordance with the agreed timescale to secure long term management of boundaries, shelter belt, the veteran ash, tree planting, village green and the SUDs area.
REASON: To mitigate the impact of development on the wider landscape and to assimilate it with the identifiable landscape character of Charminster village, in accordance with Policy ENV1. of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
14. Prior to the construction of the dwellings, material samples shall be submitted to and approved in by the LPA.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance to the development, in accordance with Policy ENV12. of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
Prior to the construction of the dwellings, precise details of the boundary treatments along the perimeter of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the LPA.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance to the development, in accordance with Policy ENV12. of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015).
15. Finished floor levels to be submitted and agreed.
16. Soft landscape scheme to be full implemented, including details of the management of excess spoil, within a timescale to be agreed in writing with the LPA .
17. Hard landscape scheme to be submitted and implemented.
18. Trees not schedules for removal shall be fenced and safeguarded during the course of development.
Page 68 19. Noise attenuation measures as detailed in the submitted application shall be incorporated into the scheme, including the erection of noise attenuation fencing in accordance with details to be submitted and approved in writing by the LPA prior to occupation.
INFORMATIVES
INFORMATIVE NOTE: If the applicant wishes to offer for adoption any highways drainage to DCC, they should contact DCC Highway’s Development team at [email protected] as soon as possible to ensure that any highways drainage proposals meet DCC’s design requirements. Our (DCC/FRM) generic guidance note regarding SW management, for the applicant’s information can be found at www.dorsetforyou.com/localfloodrisk.
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:
This full planning application is CIL liable – the present estimated charge is £689,100 plus index linking. Confirmation of DCLG space standards requested.
National Planning Policy Framework Statement
In accordance with paragraph 38 of the NPPF the council, as local planning authority, takes a positive approach to development proposals and is focused on providing sustainable development. The council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by:
• offering a pre-application advice service, and • as appropriate updating applications/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions.
In this case: • The applicant/agent was updated of any issues and provided with the opportunity to address issues identified by the case officer.
Page 69 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
Watton Park WD/D/18/001399
APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/001399
APPLICATION SITE: LAND ADJOINING WATTON PARK, WATTON PARK, BRIDPORT
PROPOSAL: Reserved matters application in respect of matters of appearance, landscaping, layout & scale for the construction of 33 no. residential dwellings and associated garages, infrastructure and landscaping all in association with outline permission WD/D/15/000521
APPLICANT: Baker Estates Ltd
CASE OFFICER: Robert Burden
WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr S Christopher
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve subject to additional information/clarification on materials, levels and landscaping details.
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 The principle of developing this site for 33 dwellings was established by outline application WD/D/15/000521 approved in March 2016. (The Committee will recall refusing a reserved matters application on this site in January 2018 - application reference WD/D/17/001566). An appeal has been lodged against that refusal and is scheduled for an appeal hearing on 16th October 2018).
1.2 This application is a revised reserved matters application which seeks to overcome the previous reasons for refusal. It includes details of the appearance, landscaping , layout and scale.
1.3 The site is 1.45 ha in area and consists of a field which is bisected by a public footpath. It has a roughly valley-shaped form with the highest point being 36m AOD at the west end, then sloping downwards in an easterly direction to about 14m AOD in the south-east corner. The north-western part is the steepest with a gradient around 1:5 - 1:6, with the lower sections about 1:12.
1.4 .The vehicular access to the site was fixed at outline stage with the access point coming off an existing turning head on the residential road known as Watton Park. The northern site boundary is mainly shown by a relatively low hedge along the section with No's 30-36 Watton Park beyond (light brown brick bungalows with dark concrete tiled roofs beyond). Further west beyond the public footpath route
Page 71 are oaks and other trees, then moving westwards along the boundary, passing Brithaven (2 storey dwelling-cream render/plain clay tile roof) there is a circa 2m high hedge with occasional gaps. This then passes the garden boundaries of the two storey stone/slate dwellings of Britlands and then The skilling. The south- western boundary runs along a well established hedgerow, with occasional trees. South-west of this the land rises up, with the public footpath (having crossed the site) ascending the hill away from the site to the south-west. Continuing past this footpath, the boundary has a fairly dense presence of boundary trees up to about 8m height. A sunken hedge-bank runs parallel with this boundary. The boundary with the Leisure Centre grounds has a circa 2m high native species hedgerow. The Leisure Centre itself sits down at a lower level to the east.
2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
2.1 The essence of the layout involves the main access road sweeping up the centre of the site in a westerly direction up to the main area of informal public open space at the highest west end. The higher land to the north of this access road proposes relatively large detached houses, progressively rising up slope to the north-west. Largely opposite these, on the south side of the straight section of road, are more detached properties. Several are aligned to face the (accommodated) existing public footpath line which crosses the site. The lower, southern-most portion of the site mainly contains semi-detached houses with smaller gardens, with all the 8 affordable housing units (including 4 flats). These are served by a smaller access road. The general disposition of the dwellings on the overall site is influenced by the presence of a trunk water main pipe which runs down the centre of the field roughly from west to east. A below-ground sewage pumping station will nbe provided at the south-eastern corner of the site.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description 1/W/88/000327 Develop land for R 11 October 1988 residential develoment
1/W/90/000380 Develop land for R 14 September residential 1990 development and construct new estate road
WD/D/15/000521 Outline application Approved 29 March 2016 for: Development of 33 dwellings,
Page 72 open space and landscaping.
WD/D/17/001566 Reserved matters REF 24 January 2018 (Appeal) application in respect of matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of 33 no. residential dwellings and associated garages, infrastructure all in association with outline permission WD/D/15/000521 (Amended scheme-Additional information and landscaping, highways, and Plot 25 amendments)
WD/D/17/001638 Change of use REF 24 January 2018 (Appeal) from agricultural land to residential garden (Use Class C3).
WD/D/17/002309 Request for 04 May 2018 confirmation of compliance with conditions 6, 8, 11, 12 & 13 of planning approval WD/D/15/000521
WD/D/18/001400 Change of use Pending from agricultural land to residential garden (Use Class C3).
Page 73
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant;
2. Achieving sustainable development 4. Decision-making 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 6. Building a strong, competitive economy 8. Promoting healthy and safe communities 9. Promoting Sustainable transport 11. Making effective use of land 12. Achieving well-designed places 14. Meeting the challenge of climate change, flooding and coastal change 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)
INT1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development ENV1 Landscape and seascape ENV10 Landscape and townscape setting ENV12 Design and positioning of buildings ENV 16 Amenity HOUS1 Affordable housing HOUS3 Open market housing mix COM7 Safe and efficient transport network COM9 Parking standards in new development
5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
5.1 West Dorset Landscape Character Assessment 2009 AONB Management Plan 2014-19 Design and Sustainable Development Guidelines 2009
Page 74 6. HUMAN RIGHTS:
6.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.
7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED. In the context of the above PSED duties the scheme includes easier access into a number of units for the less able.
8. CONSULTATIONS:
8.1 Natural England- No comments. Should apply Standing Advice. a Bio-diversity Mitigation Plan should be obtained. (Case Officer comment- was obtained at outline stage)
8.2 Wessex Water- Site crossed by 9" trunk water main. Site layout acceptable in principle to Wessex Water. Site will be serviced by separate drainage systems to adoptable standards. Pumped foull connection to thepublic system can be agreed. Appropriate proposed surface water disposal to local land drainage systems.
8.3 DCC Highway Authority- The County Highway Authority has NO OBJECTION, subject to the following condition:- Estate Road Construction (adopted or private) Before the development is occupied the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on the submitted drawing must be constructed, unless
Page 75 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.
INFORMATIVE NOTE: Developer-Led Infrastructure 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 Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.
8.4 DCC Lead Local Flood Authority- Defer to previous involvement of Environment Agency (Case Officer note: surface water is covered under condition 5 of outline approval WD/D/15/000521)
8.5 DCC Planning Obligations Officer- No comments.
8.6 Dorset Police- Note Plots 25 and 26 are close to public open space (POS) - can be affected by noise. Pleased to see hedging to an extent to "protect " from POS. Suggest Plots 2-8 served off the rear car parking area-have lockable rear access gates to help with security.
8.7 AONB Landscape Officer- Thank you for consulting the AONB Team. I have reviewed the application documents to consider the effect of the revised proposal on the character and appearance of the area. Overall, I consider that the amended design improves the appearance of the development, reducing the landscape and visual effects. Overall, it is my opinion that the proposal may not result in overriding landscape and visual effects. However, to ensure this position, I would like to confirm some aspects of the detailed design and also recommend some aspects of the design where further mitigation should be considered.
As you will be aware, I have previously submitted detailed comments regarding application WD/D/17/001566, which was refused at Committee and is now subject to an appeal. The refused application was accompanied by a landscape and visual impact assessment. Having reviewed the latest application, I note that a revised landscape and visual impact assessment is not included. It is therefore not possible to fully understand the applicant’s opinion of the changes in landscape and visual effects. Nonetheless, it is possible to provide comments on the changes to the design that have been undertaken: There has been a meaningful reduction in vertical scale, with amendment reducing the elevation of ridge heights in the landscape by up to approx. 3.5m (based on the ridge height of revised plot 26, as compared with the
Page 76 previous design). Furthermore, the massing of development has been improved, particularly in the area of plots 26-29, when comparing the revised sectional elevation with one produced for a previous design. The change to a more irregular building line is beneficial, in combination with the reduced heights of the dwellings.
There have been changes to the area where plots 23-25 are proposed, where three dwellings are now included, instead of two. These dwellings are less elevated than those they are replacing, with the ridge heights being approx. 2m. lower than previously proposed. Although the reduction is more modest in this area, as compared with plots 26-29, the nature of the site’s topography is such that the maximum ridge height for both clusters of properties of approx. 32m AOD. As such I feel that the amendments in both areas are broadly consistent and will reduce the apparent scale of housing within the upper portion of the site. One aspect of the design that could be further improved is the ‘stepping down’ of some of the properties. I note that properties 24-25 utilise the same building platform and therefore the roofline that will be created will not follow the existing landform. In my opinion, it would be particularly beneficial to lower the platform of plot 24, which forms the southern facing edge of the upper part of the site. A reduction in the elevation of this dwelling could achieve a more constituent fall between rooflines.
I consider that the extent of glazing that is proposed is too great, particularly within plots 26-29. Plots 27-29 would benefit from the removal of the upper triangular sections of glazing within the front elevations. Plot 26, which is the most elevated property with the broadest south facing front elevation, contains a notable amount of glazing. Again, I consider that the removal of the upper triangular sections would be beneficial. I also consider that reducing the extent of glazing within the dormer windows would be beneficial – e.g. the use of pitched roof dormer windows with smaller amounts of glazing. In responding to the earlier application, to which I submitted an objection, I highlighted concerns regarding vertical scale and apparent massing of the proposed dwellings within the western portion of the site. Overall, it is my opinion that the revised design has positively addressed these key concerns, thereby marginally overcoming my objection. However, as indicated above, I consider that there is some scope for further mitigation through relatively modest amendments to the revised design. Furthermore, I would like to recommend that the materials to be used for the elevational treatments be confirmed. I have reviewed both the design and access statement and the ’house pack’. The latter is not labelled and it would be beneficial to address this point. Being a marginal case, I feel that it is particularly important to ensure that the materials to be used are confirmed to be those that would adequately mitigate the visual impact of the development.
Page 77
8.8 WDDC Senior Landscape Architect- Thank you for your consultation regarding the above scheme. I have reviewed the submitted drawings and in general consider the scheme to be a sufficient improvement on the previous refused application in terms of the impact on landscape and visual effects. I have read the AONB officers comments which are inline with this view.
The following details the changes in this current scheme which improve upon the previous reasons for objection.
North side of the road Plot 26-29 The density and layout of development in the upper area the site, being now only four dwellings in a more irregular arrangement, will appropriately break up the visual mass and impact of the proposed development. In addition there has been a significant reduction in ridge heights, for example plot 26 is now approx. 3.5m lower than the previous scheme. The revised parking arrangement also softens the street scene to provide a greener frontage with more substantial planting.
South side of the road Plot 23- 25 An additional dwelling shown here is well absorbed, being lower down the slope than the northern side of the road and in an open arrangement. These plots have also been reduced in height by 2m and in the main, are stepped down the slope with the exception of plots 24-25. Please refer to Richard Brown’s recommendation suggesting lowering of plot 24 to create a continuous fall of roof levels reflecting the underlying topography.
The above modifications will reduce the landscape and visual impact of the scheme and demonstrate a more sensitive approach to the topography of the site and the character of the area which is required by Local Plan Policy and the AONB management plan.
Planting Plan I have reviewed the submitted landscape plan and noted there is a discrepancy between the proposed planting shown on the hard works and boundary plan compared with the Soft Landscape Planting Plan. It is assumed that the Planting Plan is the actual proposed scheme.
In this case the northern boundary proposed planting has been removed. My previous comments regarding north east boundary to Watton Park recommended native hedge planting to the height of the proposed 1.8m close board fence with space for maintenance access, rather than tree planting, to avoid blocking views from existing Watton Park residence. This has not been incorporated and therefore a 1.8m close board fence now abuts existing properties.
Page 78 Tree planting behind plots 26-29 has also been omitted. Boundary planting should be established to soften views of the development into the site and enhance the landscape amenity.
Proposed hedgerow aligning the central PROW should be a continuous native hedge along the route. Hedging bordering plot 26 should follow the POS fencing to clearly define the private/public space.
Boundary Plan I would like to clarify if proposed fencing will be on the ‘garden side’ of the proposed hedge along the south eastern edge. Proposed hedgerow along boundaries should be behind fencing to protect hedging from over pruning/removing by residents.
Building Design The reduction in height and revised arrangement will reduce the visual impact of the proposed buildings in the upper slope of the site. I am in agreement with the AONB officer that the reduction in the quantity of glazing in the upper storey, particularly in the more exposed plots 26-29 would further help to reduce this impact.
The selection of more visually recessive materials will also help and this information should be submitted for approval.
To summarise, I consider the amendments to the development sufficient to satisfy the previously significant concerns over the landscape and visual impact. However there are questions over the planting, building material details and boundary treatments to resolve to ensure the best possible outcome in the revised design.
8.9 WDDC Senior Tree and Landscape Officer- I’m content that the layout proposed adequately addresses concerns I had in respect of proximity to the southern boundary and garden size – particularly in respect of plots 11-16 and plot 20.
I know that Katherine will be providing you with “landscape” comments, but I note the following. The arboricultural element – in terms of species selection and position – looks well enough, with an increased percentage of native – or, at least, native in appearance – species. Having said that, I would suggest using a more upright cultivar of Acer campestre (Acer campestre “streetwise”, for example) for the two focal point trees at the first junction on the left, as clearance for vehicles would be important here and the native Acer campestre might be rather too spreading.
Page 79 I think the native hedgerow species selection might be tweaked with benefit. I’d suggest revising the list to: 30% Crataegus monogyna; 20% Corylus avellana; 20% Acer campestre; 20% Prunus spinosa; 10 Rosa canina.
Subject to these minor amendments I’d be happy to support the proposed scheme.
8.10 Housing Enabling Officer - 1. Housing need
1.1 West Dorset District Council’s current Housing Register indicates that there are over 1690 households registered in affordable housing need. There are 442 applicants on the housing register with a connection to the Bridport area.
1.2 To address the affordable housing need across the district, the Strategic Housing Market Assessment 2014 (SHMA) suggests that in the region of 130 new affordable dwellings need to be developed each year.
2. Planning Policy
2.1 The S106 agreement for the outline planning permission WD/D/15/000521 states that: “Not less than 35% of the dwellings shall be Affordable Housing Units”.
2.2 The current application for 33 homes includes 11 affordable homes. This equates to 33.3% which is an under provision of affordable housing. Therefore an additional unit of affordable housing or a financial contribution should be provided.
2.3 The current layout shows all the affordable homes clustered together and this layout will make it difficult to ensure a tenure blind and sustainable development.
3. Conclusions
The affordable housing provided on this site will assist in meeting an identified need. However, there is currently a proposed under provision and an additional unit or a financial contribution should be provided. Care must also be taken to ensure that the design of the scheme ensures a tenure blind development which result in a cohesive community in the long term.
8.11 WDDC Technical Services Officer- No comments received at time of report compilation
8.12 WDDC Urban Design Officer-
Desirable to see reduction in height/width of Plot 26 in order to assimilate into the development. Welcome reduction in visible hard surfacing at the north part of site. Question practicality of triple banked car parking. Could bring Plots 27 and 28 forward by length of one parking space- would also enlarge rear garden.
Page 80 Total of 16 different house types -more that previous scheme, although recognised that challenging topography of site. Rationalising house types would assist cohesion of form across the scheme. Could increase surveillance of public footpath from Plot 30. Plots 27-29- could add velux windows for bathroom ventilation.
8.13 WDDC Environmental Health officer- No comment
8.14 Parish Council- No objection.
8.15 Bridport Town Council (adjacent Parish)- No objection. The developer has responded appropriately to the previously stated concerns. The Town Council requests that, if this application is granted, the applicant withdraws the appeal lodged in respect of application WD/D/17/001566.
9. REPRESENTATIONS:
9.1 8 letters of objection have been received. The main planning-related points include:
The rest of the houses should be reduced to bungalows as site visible from long distances. Bungalows better for elderly or disabled residents. Should keep this site as a buffer zone for animals between Bridport and the bypass. Affordable housing should be more dispersed rather than segregated in an area. Will increase congestion on road serving site and on surrounding roads. Will cause traffic jams at Morrisons junction Increase pollution and health risks to St Marys School children Leisure centre users. Heavy lorries will generate noise, dust and disturbance- detrimental to AONB. Detrimental appearance of 33 new dwellings crowded together - detrimental to area. Will not improve economic, social and environmental conditions of area. Only change is lowering of plots 26-28. Loss of amenity/privacy to no's 30-36 Watton Park. Plans do not mitigate overwhelming impact on 30-36 Watton Park. Does not meet 35% affordable housing requirement. Detrimental impact on wildlife/natural environment. Dwellings on plots 30-33 are higher than plots26-29. Loss of open outlook across site to south.
Page 81 Overlooking from first floor of new houses of Watton Park dwellings. Affordable housing is not tenure blind. Scheme ignores 6m easement required by Wessex Water-foundations will be near water main. Danger of breaching water main leading to flooding. Will not provide substantial affordable housing. Should be resisted as an example of major development. Application must be thoroughly assessed. Conflicts with objections/policies in AONB Management Plan; will harm area for Watton Park residents. Overdevelopment of site; should re-design with bungalows in lower numbers. Scale and massing impacts in the AONB and will harm countryside setting of Bridport. Boundary planting still lacks space to grow. Scale of dwellings virtually unchanged from previous refusal.
Full copies of all letters of representation can be viewed at dorsetforyou.com.
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
Effect on the layout, scale, landscaping and appearance on the character of the site, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and views from public rights of way. Effect on residential amenity. Effect on highway safety
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:
11.1 The principle of developing this site for 33 dwellings was established by outline application WD/D/15/000521 issued on 29 March 2016. The outline permission established that the site could be developed for 33 dwellings and it fixed the point of vehicular access as being from the adjacent Watton Park road. All other matters were reserved.
11.2 The Committee will recall refusing a reserved matters application (WD/D/17/001566) on this site in January this year. The reason for refusal is set out below:
The site lies within the designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and comprises an attractive sloping tract of landscape on the edge of the built-up area of Bridport, and is crossed by a public footpath. The land rises most notably to the west of the site. Development of the adjacent Watton Park has followed the principle of dwellings reducing in height the higher up the hill they are, thereby reflecting the underlying topography of the slope and reducing visual prominence.
Page 82 The detailed layout and design of the dwellings now proposed west of the public footpath includes 2 and 3 storey frontage dwellings which rise up the slope. It is considered that the height, scale and massing of these units substantially departs from the existing topographic levels of the existing landscape leaving little trace of any sense of the underlying landform character. Furthermore, the tight spacing of these plots, particularly on the north side, further erodes any sense of relative openness on this edge-of-town site.
The scale, height, massing and prominence significantly increases the impact of the urban edge on the wider countryside. It would result in relatively high density elevated housing generating a conspicuous new edge to Bridport that is particularly perceptible in views from the south. The proposed housing on the western part of the site will visually coalesce to present a dense block of urban development undermining the countryside setting of Bridport and harming the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.
Moreover, the frontage design treatment of the five higher Plots 25 to 29, dominated by the repetition of garage doors and in effect an uninterrupted line of frontage parking for 11 cars results in a starkly suburban appearance departing sharply from the subtlety of the landform rising up the hill, and lacking meaningful scope for landscaping.
Furthermore, the dwelling proposed on Plot 25 is considered to be a cramped overdevelopment, lacking garden area and too close to the site boundary; the boundary planting here consequently lacks space to grow and expand, so compromising its potential to flourish. The proximity of the planting coupled with the small garden area represents a poor level of amenity space provision, given the size of dwelling - to the detriment of the residential amenity of potential future occupiers.
The positioning of the dwellings on Plots 11-12, 13-14 and 20 to the valued existing and proposed southern boundary planting is uncomfortably close. Consequently this is likely to lead to pressure from potential occupiers for removal/cutting back of this planting due to shading. Large oak trees have also been proposed for the northern boundary- again prompting shading concerns to dwellings - to the detriment of residential amenity.
In the light of the above the scheme is considered to harm the following: The Chideock Hills Landscape Character Area; the character of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; the quality of views from the public footpath across the site and public views from wider public viewpoints. It is also considered to cause harm to residential amenity for the reasons set out above.
Hence the scheme is considered contrary to policies ENV1, ENV10, ENV12 and ENV16 of the adopted West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015; contrary to objectives L2, PH1 and PH2 of the Dorset AONB Management plan
Page 83 2014-19, and contrary to the advice within Section 17 (Core planning principles- amenity), paras 58, 64 and 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
11.3 The applicant has lodged an appeal against the above refusal which is scheduled to be considered by a hearing on 16th October 2018. They have also submitted a revised reserved matters application (before you now) in an effort to overcome the previous reason for refusal.
11.4 This reserved matters application seeks approval for the layout, scale, landscaping and appearance of the 33 dwellings. (A separate full planning application (WD/D/18/001400) has been made to change the use of a small area of field to garden at the south-east edge of the site - which will follow this item on the agenda).
11.5 This reserved matters application indicates, as expected from the outline application, that the access road enters the site from Watton Park and sweeps round to the west, then running up the slope towards the highest part of the site terminating at the informal public open space area. At a point in the eastern half of the site a lower hierarchy road runs off to the extreme south of the site. The junction of these roads also functions as the vehicle turning head for service and delivery vehicles. The residential layout generally shows dwellings near to or set back from the site frontage with nearly all having a rear garden. Beginning at the entrance to the site there are two very small areas of public open space upon entry to the site before the road is flanked by dwellings; on the north side of the road there are 2 storey detached dwellings with detached or integral garaging. The houses have been set at a lower level on the sloping hillside where they are to the south of 30 - 36 Watton Park (bungalows at a higher level) with gardens rising to the rear. Moving westwards, the line of the public footpath is maintained, cutting across the site on a north-east/south west axis. Beyond the footpath line, and with the land rising upwards in a westerly direction the development includes 4 detached split- level one and a half storey houses (including a first floor at the front and single storey at the rear -due to the rising ground levels. These have a variable alignment to the frontage with parking to frontage areas, and gardens to the rear. Plots 26- 29 are 4 bed units.
11.6 West of these is the highest part of the site and, consistent with the expectation from the outline permission, this area is indicated as informal public open space. Continuing down eastwards, on the south of the access road are more detached 2 storey houses with rear gardens the highest (plot 25) is a 4 bed with the others, running eastwards, being mainly 4 with 1 x 3 bed . The houses flanking the right of way south of the road face this public route, which also allows vehicular access to reach the more south-western positioned houses. Moving eastwards, as the land drops down into the south-east part of the site this is the location of the group of 11 affordable dwellings. These are grouped around the minor estate road. They comprise 2 bed semi-detached units and a pair of 1 bed flats on the south of the road, and to the east of the road a 3 bed unit attached as pair of 1 bed flats,
Page 84 with a further pair of 2 bed semi-detached houses near the east boundary- making up the affordable housing grouping. This group is served by a parking courtyard as well as some frontage parking. Returning north-eastwards, the site has 2 pairs of 2 bed and 3 bed semi-detached dwellings and a detached 3 bed unit as the site is entered.
11.7 The mix of units comprises 4 x 1 bed, 8 x 2 bed, 4 x 3 bed and 17 x 4 bed. Whilst this does demonstrate a range of sizes it is noticeably orientated towards larger dwellings. Having said this there are a good number of smaller units. It is considered that this scheme does provide an acceptable mix of units - including the smaller affordable units.
11.8 Within this number, the mix of affordable dwellings comprises 4 x 1 bed units, 6 x 2 bed dwellings and 1 x 3 bed house. This could be regarded as a reasonable size mix in affordable housing terms. However, in the context of this overall site distribution the fact that these are clustered together is not ideal from the point of view of fostering community integration with the open market units. The scheme does seem to divide the site in two, with larger detached open market houses to the west, and smaller semi-detached affordable/open market houses to the east. This distinction is also reinforced by, in general, the notably contrasting garden sizes. However, whilst these characteristics are not ideal, it is felt on balance, that the scheme is generally acceptable in this respect. The Housing Enabling Officer supports this application.
11.9 The scheme includes 33.8% affordable housing (11 units). The requirement is for 35%. The shortfall, in accordance with para 5.2.4 of the Local Plan, will be made up by means of a financial contribution. This has been calculated at £22,068 by the Housing Enabling Officer .
11.10 The site is mainly fringed by boundary planting including native hedgerows and trees. The distribution and proximity of some dwellings to the boundary previously raised questions over the acceptability of the layout. The layout concerns regarding the very small garden and proximity to the northern boundary of the dwelling Plot 26 have now been addressed; this now has a more generous garden area and the dwelling has been moved away from the northern boundary.
11.11 Moving southwards, plots 20 and 21 front the right of way route. These are positioned on rising ground and are relatively close to the south-western boundary planting-raising issues of shading and consequent pressure for cutting back by future occupiers. The previous concern over the Plot 20 dwelling has been addressed by moving this slightly further northward; the Senior Tree and Landscape Officer is now content, on balance, with this positioning. Similarly, there was a concern over the proximity to the boundary planting of Plots 13-16. This has been addressed in this application by moving the 2 pairs of houses a further 2m away; again the Senior Tree Officer is content that addrsses his previous concerns. The whole group of Plots 11-16 has been repositioned about
Page 85 4m north-westwards, and this has also enabled Plots 11/12 to be moved about 1m further from the boundary. As such, the Tree and Landscape Officer is now content with these re-sitings. He has also made comments relating to amended species on the planting scheme which the applicant is addressing.
11.12 It will be noted that there is an "inward kink" in the site area boundary at plots 11/12. The applicant has made a separate application for the change of use of the corner of the adjacent field to form a usable garden area to "square off" this part of the site. That application follows this on the agenda.
11.13 Regarding the density, the scheme has a density of about 26 dwellings per hectare (excluding the public open space areas)
11.14 Regarding the parking layout, the scheme proposes a total of 70 spaces for the 33 units ( 2 spaces per unit average).
11.15 The open market dwellings all have parking conveniently close-by and within curtilage or immediately adjacent. The affordable housing has parking either adjacent or in the courtyard parking opposite. (Parking is further considered in the Highways and Parking Section later).
11.16 The public right of way is retained on its current alignment crossing the site. At present the route enjoys open views as it crosses the site. Obviously that would change with whatever layout for 33 dwellings came forward. On the outline illustrative layout the treatment of the route suggested a wide grassed/landscaped corridor, retaining a sense of relative openness. On the current reserved matters layout this is replaced by a narrower dwelling-flanked route on the north, and by a hard surfaced section to the south. There are however hedges top be provided along its route to help provide a verdant element.
11.17 Scale- The issue of scale is of particular relevance to this application. When the outline application was considered there was concern from the planning committee regarding the potential scale and height of development on the higher parts of the site. This resulted in the planning committee adding an informative note to the outline approval notice. This stated:
You are advised that in order to reduce the impact of the proposed development on the wider landscape, no dwellings on the more elevated parts of the site should exceed single storey in height with potentially rooms in the roofspace.
11.18 It is the Case Officers understanding (having spoken to officers who were at that meeting) that the planning committee wished to communicate this point to any subsequent applicant for a detailed/reserved matters scheme, to help reduce the visual impact on the site and the landscape. The committee would have been aware that adjacent development in Watton Park follows the principle of 2 storey
Page 86 housing at the lower parts of the hill, reducing to bungalows on the higher sections. (The committee undertook a committee site visit as part of the consideration of the outline application).
11.19 Returning to the informative this is just that - an informative. It is not a planning condition which would require a legitimate reserved matters submission to adhere to that scale. However, it does send a message to any applicant indicating a clear preferred direction for a reduced scale of development on the higher land.
11.20 Following the refusal of WD/D/17/001566, the applicant has held fresh pre- application discussions to consider a revised reserved matters scheme. This application is the result of those discussions.
11.21 The committee will recall there was particular concern over the scale, layout design and massing with the previous refused reserved matters scheme in the west part of the site beyond the right of way. The applicant has sought to address these concerns on the scheme now before you. It will be noted that the dwellings on the north side of the access road have been changed from 3 storey frontage to a design which is much more consistent with the advice in the previous informative; the dwellings are now based on a one and a half storey design and the height is reduced by between 3.5m at the west end and 1.5m at the eastern end of the group of 4 dwellings. These dwellings are split-level with the rear being a single storey height due to the rising ground levels of the site. The applicant has also varied the alignment of the dwellings- which helps to open up the space from the previous prominent close-spaced uniform frontage massing. The lowering of these units also helps to "grade" the transition into the public open space area and better evoke the sense of openness in this vicinity.
11.22 Opposite these, on the south side of the access road 4 dwellings rather than 3 are now proposed (this resulting from the deletion of 1 house from the northern side). Again the applicant has reduced the height of 3 of these dwellings on the higher part of this land; these 3 dwellings have again become one and a half storey, and the height reduction has reduced by 2m on plot 25 and 2.4m on plot 23. Both the AONB Landscape Officer and the WDDC Landscape Officer have expressed concern over the height of plot 24- which does not show a proportionate (low) positioning with the topography. The applicant acknowledges this and is looking at reducing the level of this unit by 0.4m (there are implications of retaining walls/steps which will result from that adjustment). Amended plans are expected in advance of the committee meeting.
11.23 In the south-east part of the site the 2 storey dwellings nestle relatively comfortably on the site at this lower level. South of 30 - 36 Watton Park the detached dwellings are set back slightly from the road, but have usefully avoided being too high up the slope. The applicant has engaged in pre-application contact with the neighbours and the scale/height of these 2 storey houses helps to reduce
Page 87 the impact on the views of adjacent residents of the bungalows looking southwards. Following the comments of the landscape Officer we would look to secure hedgerow planting along the back boundary of plots 30 - 33.
11.24 The applicant has pointed out that the dwellings such as Brithaven, Britlands and The Skillings are positioned at a much higher level than the proposed dwellings. However, these are much older established properties, and have significant landscaped space around them. The dwellings as now proposed are considered to have an acceptable relationship with the existing topography of the site.
11.25 Landscaping- The site comprises an attractive open pasture field crossed by a public footpath. There are views out of the site to the south-east towards the coast/hills. The site is outside but adjacent to the development boundary. A factor which weighed in the decision to accept the principle of housing here was that the council had (and still has) a slight shortfall on its housing land supply (4.94 years when 5 is the minimum requirement). The acceptance of the outline application was - quite correctly - influenced by the Landscape and Visual Assessment (LVIA ). At the time of the outline application an illustrative layout was provided. Whilst this was purely illustrative it did give reassurance that 33 dwellings could be erected on the site in way that sought to minimise the visual impact on the site and views of it. This scheme does differ significantly from that layout, but this layout has now been revised through negotiation to an acceptable point. The revised more open frontages to plots 26 -29 allows for improved landscaping from the previous refused scheme. Para 172 of the NPPF indicates that: "Great weight should be given to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in . . . Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty" Officers are now satisfied that this revised scheme now gives sufficient regard to this criterion.
11.26 The AONB Landscape and WDDC Landscape Officers are much happier with this layout and general approach to landscaping. There are some planting adjustments required and the agent is currently addressing these- amended details are to be provided.
11.27 Appearance- The underlying rationale presented for this scheme is a contemporary aesthetic that seeks to reference the building forms and material palettes in the wider area. A wide variety of house types have been used, based on pitched roofs and with gabled treatments also present. Brick, stone and timber has been used in facades, with stone plinths on larger detached units. The roofing materials proposed are Marley Eternit (indicated as Modern Smooth Grey or Duo Edgeware Smooth Grey). Large repetitive openings are used to increase light. Existing adjacent development in Watton Park is generally light brown brick with dark concrete tiles. To the north the existing larger detached dwellings are of stone with slate roofs or
Page 88 cream render with small plain clay tiled roofs. It is considered that the proposed materials are appropriate subject to final sample details
11.28 Regarding the designs, the use of a more contemporary aesthetic, with larger, sometimes projecting windows , and split gable treatments with two materials vertically is considered acceptable; the site is large enough to warrant an approach which does not need to replicate the precise design treatment or materials of adjacent development.
11.29 Effect on residential amenity- The scheme shares a common boundary with the dwellings and gardens of Watton Park, and with Brithaven, Britlands and the Skillings on Broad Lane. Regarding the proposed houses on the north of the access road and south of Watton Park backing onto the existing bungalows; These proposed dwellings have been sited southwards - which has lowered them relative to the bungalows. Concerns have been expressed by neighbours opposite the site in the vicinity of Plots 30 - 33. These concerns are partly based on loss of outlook and loss of privacy. However, the applicant has achieved a reasonable distance between these dwellings and the bungalows to the north; the distance between the rear wall of, for example, No 34 (excluding the conservatory) and the rear face of the nearest (plot 33) house is 24m - an acceptable distance. The garden of No 34 is 9m long, and the garden of the proposed dwelling is 15m long. This proposed dwelling has a similar ridge height to the bungalow. As such, unacceptable overlooking would not occur. The other proposed dwellings in this northern group have slightly longer back gardens and so the relationship with the existing bungalows is considered acceptable.
11.30 Moving to the west, the 4 proposed detached 4 bed houses are aligned on a roughly north-west/south-east axis. These are now sited at a markedly even lower level than the bungalows 28 and 30 Watton Park, and the large detached house known as Brithaven. Each of the proposed dwellings here now have acceptable sized gardens of c10 - 11m rear depth. The previously unacceptably small garden of Plot 25 (now Plot 26) is now acceptable.
11.31 Regarding the relationship between the proposed dwellings themselves and gardens more generally, it is considered that these are acceptable in residential amenity terms having regard to overlooking and privacy considerations.
Highway and Parking considerations- 11.32 In terms of the principle of 33 dwellings on this site that was established by the outline permission. Letters have been received expressing concern over traffic generation, congestion and highway safety issues. However, the wider effects of that traffic generation have been assessed previously and concluded to be acceptable.
Page 89 11.33 This reserved matters application shows details of the access roads and parking provisions. The plans show a 5m wide access road with footway which sweeps through the centre of the site. A service vehicle turning head is incorporated and there is a further access road off it that extends to the south-east.
11.34 Parking for the units close to the site entrance and on the north side of the main access road, and the detached units to the south is provided within curtilage and in garaging. To the south-east parking is mainly provided within parking courtyards. The scheme provides a total of 70 off-road spaces for the 33 units. The parking allocation to dwellings varies with a tendency towards the larger units having generous parking provisions. The Highway Authority have assessed the layout and parking and consider this acceptable providing the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas are provided and maintained as such. The parking numbers and distribution across the site are considered acceptable.
12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:
12.1 The principle of 33 dwellings on this site is established. This scheme is a revised scheme from that previously refused. This scheme is considered to meet the 3 overarching objectives of sustainable development; regarding the economic objective, the construction phase would benefit the economy and would probably involve some local companies. The social objective would include the provision of 11 affordable dwellings, and the new households may contribute to and support community facilities in the locality. From the environmental viewpoint this scheme now recognises the sensitivity needed in scale and massing terms in a way which is now appropriate to reflect the areas topographic character and the visual amenity of the AONB. Revised positioning of units and additional planting planting of trees and other vegetation together with the bio-diversity plan will bring environmental and bio-diversity benefits. This scheme is now considered to satisfactorily address the concerns of the previous refusal with scale, massing and landscaping- subject to some amendments-now being acceptable. The scheme is now consistent with the policies and guidance outlined in the above report.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with conditions, subject to receipt of additional information on materials, levels and landscaping details:
1 Plans list
2. No development above DPC level shall be commenced until details and samples of all external facing materials for the wall(s) and roof(s) shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.
Page 90 Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.
3. The landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with the revised submitted landscape scheme. The scheme shall be implemented during the planting season November - March inclusive, immediately following commencement of the development, or as may be agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include provision for the maintenance and replacement as necessary of the trees and shrubs for a period of not less than 10 years from completion of the development. Reason : To ensure the appropriate mitigation planting is carried out and for the avoidance of doubt.
4. No dwelling hereby approved shall be occupied until details of the means of protection (post-construction) to the existing and proposed planting have first been carried out in accordance with such details as shall have first been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: to secure the long-term retention of the planting.
5. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling hereby approved details of the arrangements for long-term management of the landscaping shall first have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory on-going landscape management
6. No dwelling hereby approved shall be first occupied until details of the means of enclosure (in addition to the proposed hedge planting) to the rear of plots 11 – 20, and the revised alignment of the means of enclosure details for the east boundary have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved details shall be installed and permanently retained prior to first occupation of any dwelling.
Reason: In the interests of visual amenity.
7. Before the development is occupied the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on the submitted drawing 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 91 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 8
Watton Park WD/D/18/001400
APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/001400
APPLICATION SITE: LAND SOUTH OF WATTON PARK, WATTON PARK, BRIDPORT
PROPOSAL: Change of use from agricultural land to residential garden (Use Class C3).
APPLICANT: Baker Estates Ltd
CASE OFFICER: Robert Burden
WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr S Christopher
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve with conditions
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
1.1 This application is inextricably linked to the reserved matters application WD/D/18/001399 preceding it on this agenda. The original outline approval site area (WD/D/15/000521) on the southern site boundary had a marked "northward kink"; a "bite", or area departing from the more meandering boundary line. The applicant has submitted this full application which covers a small triangular area of land to effectively make a more uniform linear boundary to the reserved matters site area.
2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
2.2 The piece of land comprises a small part of a grassed field and a sunken hedge-bank with planting. The availability of this additional land has allowed the applicant to propose 2 semi-detached affordable units (plots 11-12) immediately adjacent to the outline boundary with larger gardens.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description 1/W/88/000327 Develop land for R 11 October 1988 residential development
Page 93 1/W/90/000380 Develop land for R 14 September residential 1990 development and construct new estate road
WD/D/15/000521 Outline application A 29 March 2016 for: Development of 33 dwellings, open space and landscaping.
WD/D/17/001566 Reserved matters REF 24 January 2018 (Appeal) application in respect of matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale for the construction of 33 no. residential dwellings and associated garages, infrastructure all in association with outline permission WD/D/15/000521 (Amended scheme-Additional information and landscaping, highways, and Plot 25 amendments)
WD/D/17/001638 Change of use REF (Appeal) from agricultural land to residential garden (Use Class C3).
WD/D/17/001638 Change of use R 24 January 2018 from agricultural land to residential garden (Use Class C3).
Page 94
WD/D/17/002309 Request for 04 May 2018 confirmation of compliance with conditions 6, 8, 11, 12 & 13 of planning approval WD/D/15/000521
WD/D/18/001399 Reserved matters Pending application in respect of matters of appearance, landscaping, layout & scale for the construction of 33 no. residential dwellings and associated garages, infrastructure and landscaping all in association with outline permission WD/D/15/000521
RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework As far as this application is concerned the following section(s) of the NPPF are considered to be relevant; 2. Achieving sustainable development 5. Delivering a sufficient supply of homes 7. Promoting healthy and safe communities 12. Achieving well-designed places 15. Conserving and enhancing the natural environment
Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
Page 95
4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) ENV1 Landscape and seascape ENV10 Landscape and townscape setting ENV16 Amenity
5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
5.1 Design and Sustainable Development Guidelines 2009 5.2 Dorset AONB Management Plan 2014- 19 5.3 Landscape Character Assessment 2009
6. HUMAN RIGHTS:
6.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.
7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED
8. CONSULTATIONS:
8.1 Highway Authority- No objection
8.2 Parish Council- No objection.
Page 96
9. REPRESENTATIONS:
9.1 No letters of representation received.
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
Effect on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Landscaping
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:
11.1 As mentioned above, this application is inextricably linked with the preceding reserved matters application on the agenda WD/D/18/001399. The dwellings on Plots 11-12 are positioned close to the southern site boundary within the red lined outline approval site - at a point where the site has a sharp change of alignment. The applicant has purchased a small triangular shaped piece of land to form a more consistent line to the south boundary. Hence, he has made this full application to change the use of this piece of land to help make up the area for the back gardens of Plots 11-12.
11.2 The addition of this area is a logical and useful addition to provide enhanced amenity space in relation to the adjacent affordable dwellings. The plot 11-12 dwellings closest have been moved slightly northwards which improves the distance to the boundary planting. Appropriate conditions to protect/add landscaping will need to be added to integrate this parcel with the wider overall site.This has been discussed with the Senior Tree and landscape Officer.
12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:
12.1 It is considered that the change of use of this land parcel would provide a useful and logical garden space addition to the adjacent application area, subject to conditions to address landscaping.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve with conditions:
1 Plans list
2. Three year standard
Page 97 3. A landscaping scheme shall be submitted to and approved in writing prior to first occupation of the dwellings hereby approved under PA WD/D/18/001399. The agreed scheme shall be implemented during the planting season November - March inclusive, immediately following commencement of the development, or as may be agreed otherwise in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall include provision for the maintenance and replacement as necessary of the trees and shrubs for a period of not less than 10 years from completion of the development. The scheme shall also include details of tree protection during construction of the adjacent development and details of the means of protection (post-construction) to the existing and proposed planting. The scheme shall not be carried out otherwise than in accordance with the agreed details.
Reason : To ensure the appropriate mitigation planting is carried out and for the avoidance of doubt.
4. Prior to first occupation of any dwelling on the adjacent reserved matters site hereby approved details of the arrangements for long-term management of the landscaping shall first have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: To ensure satisfactory on-going landscape management
Page 98 Agenda Item 9
APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/17/002598
APPLICATION SITE: 5 BACK STREET, ABBOTSBURY, WEYMOUTH, DT3 4JP
PROPOSAL: Erect scaffolding, strip off the thatch, carry out timber repairs as required, rethatch all in accordance with the Dorset model. Remove scaffolding.
APPLICANT: Ilchester Estates
CASE OFFICER: Steven Banks
WARD MEMBER(S): Cllr T Bartlett, Cllr I Gardner, Cllr J Dunseith
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Refuse
1.0 DESCRIPTION OF SITE: 1.1 This application relates to a detached, rubble stone, dwelling under a thatched roof. The dwelling which is known as, 5 Back Street Abbotsbury, can be found on the north east side of the street. It sits in a group of 5 thatched properties. It is Grade II Listed detached cottage, mid 18th century with rubble stone walls with thatch roof and gable ends.
2.0 DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT: 2.2 In this application for Listed Building Consent it is proposed to remove the existing thatch, carry out necessary repairs, install Fireline boarding and install a Dorset Model, Abbotsbury water reed roof, with a wheat straw ridge. There is no information from the applicant supporting the need for the replacement roof or why the proposed materials have been chosen.
3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
Application No. Application Decision Date of decision Description 1/E/78/000701 Demolish lean to and A 13 February 1979 erect extension and alterations
1/E/79/000483 Demolish lean to and 15 January 1980 erect extension
1/E/80/000338 Demolish lean to and A 23 May 1980 erect extension
Page 99 1/E/92/000115 Erect sign A 23 April 1992
1/E/92/000116 Erect sign A 23 April 1992
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES: 4.1 National Planning Policy Framework As far as this application is concerned the following sections of the NPPF are considered to be relevant:
Section 16. Conserving and enhancing the historic environment
4.2 The following paragraphs within Section 16 are relevant: Paragraph 189 - In determining applications, local planning authorities should require an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected, including any contribution made by their setting. The level of detail should be proportionate to the assets’ importance and no more than is sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal on their significance. As a minimum the relevant historic environment record should have been consulted and the heritage assets assessed using appropriate expertise where necessary. Where a site on which development is proposed includes, or has the potential to include, heritage assets with archaeological interest, local planning authorities should require developers to submit an appropriate desk-based assessment and, where necessary, a field evaluation.
4.3 Paragraph 190 - Local planning authorities should identify and assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal (including by development affecting the setting of a heritage asset) taking account of the available evidence and any necessary expertise. They should take this into account when considering the impact of a proposal on a heritage asset, to avoid or minimise any conflict between the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the proposal.
4.4 Paragraph 192 - In determining applications, local planning authorities should take account of: a) the desirability of sustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; b) the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and c) the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.
4.5 Paragraph 193 - When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.
Page 100
4.6 Decision taking: Para 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision-makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
4.7 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015)
ENV4. Heritage Assets
5. HUMAN RIGHTS: 5.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 5.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 5.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property
5.4 This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.
6. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY: 6.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:- • Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics • Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people • Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
6.2 Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.
7. CONSULTATIONS: 7.1 Parish Council /Town Council 7.2 No objections.
7.3 DCP Conservation Officer 7.4 The application proposes a “Dorset model roof” to be installed on this vernacular cottage. The “Dorset model roof” was designed to enable thatched roofs to
Page 101 be installed on new build houses. For installation the expectation is that the building is straight and square. The materials used to build the roof are again uniform in their dimensions. No details have been supplied for the works as required by NPPF para.128. The application needs more detail on how the new build will be adapted to the existing structure. The submitted plans indicate that water reed is proposed for the roof. The local vernacular for Abbotsbury is Combed Wheat Reed (CWR). Therefore a change in material will need compelling justification to gain support. The NPPF at para.132 asks LPAs to consider the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset and that great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. The more important the asset, the greater the weight should be. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building should be exceptional. There has been no evidence presented that this building was ever thatched with water reed. There is no justification case submitted to support this application. Further more the technique for thatching with CWR and WR is peculiar to each material, while this difference may only be apparent to the trained eye the application of the material is also part of the building’s history and also of the thatching craft. The Listed Building Legislation is designed to protect the building’s significance of which include the materials it is made from. The primary legislation is clear the intent is to preserve or enhance the Listed Building.
7.5 The application proposes a change to the material used to re thatch the building. The material, water reed (WR), is not a vernacular covering for Abbotsbury although in recent times WR has been imported and used on local roofs. Recent appeal cases have pointed at the need to use the correct material on roofs to avoid the loss of significance. This application has asked us to consider the use of water reed from local source. The applicant considers that enough WR can be obtained from the Abbotsbury reed beds. However if it can be demonstrated that the reed beds can be managed in a way that is conducive to the production of roofing water reed then some consideration could be given to a scheme to thatch non listed buildings from this source.
7.6 Recommendation: Cannot support.
7.7 All full consultee responses and representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com
8. REPRESENTATIONS: 8.1 At the time of writing, no representations have been received.
9. PLANNING ISSUES: 9.1 Impact on character, appearance and historic fabric of the listed building.
10. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:
Page 102 Impact on character, appearance and historic fabric of the listed building
10.1 It is identified in policy ENV4 that development should conserve and where appropriate enhance the significance of designated heritage assets. It is also identified that any harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset must be justified. Section 66 and 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) identify, respectively, that the Local Planning Authority shall have regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and to the desirability of preserving its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which it possesses. Paragraph 128 of the NPPF identifies that applicants should describe the significance of any heritage assets affected and paragraph 132 identifies that great weight should be given to the assets conservation. It is further identified in paragraph 132 that any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification and that substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building should be exceptional.
10.2 It is proposed to replace the Combed Wheat Reed Roof of the building with Water Reed. The local vernacular for Abbotsbury is Combed Wheat Reed and the technique for thatching with Combed Wheat Reed differs from thatching with Water Reed. The application of Combed Wheat Reed is part of the buildings history and is of great significance to the buildings grade II listing. The loss of this significant element would cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the listed building. There is not sufficient justification for the loss of the Combed Wheat Reed thatched roof. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV4 of the Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015), Section 66 and 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) and paragraphs 128 and 132 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2012.
10.3 No evidence of the existing type or age of thatch is provided by the applicant within their submitted Heritage Statement. Although the application form states that the existing thatch is water reed (WC) our conservation officer has identified it as combed-wheat reed (CWR). The predominant traditional material for this area is CWR and any repairs to the roof should be carried out in this material unless evidence can be provided, by the applicant, that water reed has been used on the property.
10.4 Some historic use of water reed in Abbotsbury is recognised and is an important part of Dorset’s heritage, providing evidence of the use of available local material for thatching. However, the widespread application of water reed on buildings that were not historically thatched in water reed, reduces the impact of this local historic evidence. Furthermore, the removal of the existing thatch is unnecessary for the insertion of fireboard and the “Dorset model”, as this is only appropriate to and designed specifically for new build properties.
10.5 The pattern and form of ridges, eaves, verges and dormers that contribute to the style of the roof differs drastically depending on the thatching material used. If
Page 103 water reed were to be used (even if sourced locally) the change to the appearance of this property would be significant and make it stand out from the rest of the street. The conservation officer does however questions that locally sourced water reed is viable. If this change in material and thatching technique takes place to individual or properties in a historic group in a village such as Abbotsbury the impact on the character of the local area can become dramatic and harmful to both the listed building itself and surrounding area.
11. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY: 11.1 The proposed thatching of this property with water reed using the “Dorset model” is considered to be damaging to the listed building without adequate justification. Combed wheat reed is important to the historic significance of this listed building and the loss of this material would cause substantial harm which is not outweighed by any public benefit. The proposal is contrary to both national and local policy and should therefore be refused.
12. RECOMMENDATION: 12.1 Refuse for the following reason.
12.2 The loss of the combed wheat reed is considered to result in substantial harm to the significance of the listed building and there are no substantial public benefits to outweigh this harm. There is no sufficient justification for the loss of the Combed Wheat Reed thatched roof. The proposal is therefore contrary to policy ENV4 of the Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015), Section 66 and 16 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 (as amended) and Section 16 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2018, in particular paragraph 196.
Page 104 Agenda Item 10
APPLICATION NUMBER: WD/D/18/000178/FUL
APPLICATION SITE: SEA CAMPION, SWYRE ROAD, WEST BEXINGTON, DORCHESTER, DT2 9DD
PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey pitched roof front extension; addition of veranda at front and remodelling works and modernisation to existing house. Construction of a new garden studio building in the back garden.
APPLICANT: Backlist Ltd
CASE OFFICER: Dean White
WARD MEMBERS: Cllr J Russell
RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY: Approve
1. DESCRIPTION OF SITE:
1.1 Sea Campion is a detached split level three bedroomed property with a basement and integral garage. It is constructed of small tiles and stone facing. It sits on the north side of Swyre Road in a linear group of various style dwellings, on the outskirts of West Bexington.
1.2 The dwelling sits at the front of a long rectangular plot oriented on a SW-NE axis, which has a back garden measuring some 50m in length by 16m wide. The rear garden is mainly lawn, with a variety of individual tree planting and hedge boundary. The rear garden boundary has a dilapidated wall and some mature tree planting which marks the boundary with another property, Plum Cottage - part of the Wayside holiday cottages.
1.3 The garden is screened in the wider landscape by a variety of mature hedge plants and trees in surrounding gardens and fields.
1.4 The site is outside the defined development boundary. It is not within a conservation area or subject to any TPOs. It is sited within the wider Dorset AONB and Heritage Coast.
1.5 The applicant submitted a bat emergence survey report and a Biodiversity mitigation plan during the course of the application.
2. DESCRIPTION OF DEVELOPMENT:
2.1 The proposal is to modernise the existing building – with a new pitched roof and extension to the front which would provide an enlarged sitting room on the
Page 105 ground floor and an addition bedroom and shower on the lower ground floor. In addition a veranda/terrace would be provided on the front elevation. The proposed materials are stone, render and timber cladding with and light grey aluminium windows. The new roof would be a standing seam roof to replace the existing tiles.
2.2 The proposed studio/garden outbuilding at the rear is an amended design, which reduces the scale of the originally submitted proposal. The outbuilding would be single storey 8m by 4.5 m, with a veranda extending the overall footprint to 8m x 7.5m. The maximum ridge height of the building would be 4.5m. The walls would be timber clad and the roof is indicated to be slate, tiles or felt.
2.3 The outbuilding would be set towards the rear of the rear garden in an area screened from the wider landscape by bushes and trees. The outbuilding would be screened by the main dwelling from the road and seafront ‘street’ scene.
3. RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:
3.1 None.
4. RELEVANT PLANNING POLICIES:
4.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2018)
Part 12: Achieving Well-Designed Places
Part 15: Conserving and Enhancing the Natural Environment
Part 4: Decision-making
Paragraph 38 - Local planning authorities should approach decisions on proposed development in a positive and creative way. They should use the full range of planning tools available, including brownfield registers and permission in principle, and work proactively with applicants to secure developments that will improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. Decision- makers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible.
4.2 Adopted West Dorset and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) As far as this application is concerned the following policies are considered to be relevant.
INT1. Presumption In Favour Of Sustainable Development
ENV1. Landscape, Seascape And Sites Of Geological Interest
ENV2. Wildlife And Habitats
Page 106 ENV10. The Landscape And Townscape Setting
ENV11. The Pattern Of Streets And Spaces
ENV12. The Design And Positioning Of Buildings
ENV16. Amenity
SUS2. Distribution Of Development
HOUS6 - Residential Development Outside of DDB
5. OTHER MATERIAL PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS:
5.1 Bexington Coast Landscape Character Appraisal (2009)
5.2 Dorset AONB Management Plan (2014-2019)
6. HUMAN RIGHTS:
Article 6 - Right to a fair trial Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property.
This Recommendation is based on adopted Development Plan policies, the application of which does not prejudice the Human Rights of the applicant or any third party.
7. PUBLIC SECTOR EQUALITIES DUTY:
7.1 As set out in the Equalities Act 2010, all public bodies, in discharging their functions must have “due regard” to this duty. There are 3 main aims:-
Removing or minimising disadvantages suffered by people due to their protected characteristics Taking steps to meet the needs of people with certain protected characteristics where these are different from the needs of other people Encouraging people with certain protected characteristics to participate in public life or in other activities where participation is disproportionately low.
7.2 Whilst there is no absolute requirement to fully remove any disadvantage the Duty is to have “regard to” and remove OR minimise disadvantage and in considering the merits of this planning application the planning authority has taken into consideration the requirements of the PSED.
8. CONSULTATIONS:
Page 107
8.1 Puncknowle and Swyre Council objected due to concerns about the future use of the outbuilding and the size of the outbuilding.
8.2 DCC Highways have no objection.
8.3 DCP Technical Services made no objection or comment.
8.4 The DCP Trees Officer made no objection.
9. REPRESENTATIONS:
9.1 The originally submitted l proposal had one letter of support and one letter of objection, which objected to the future use of the outbuilding and impact of the outbuilding on the cottages to the rear. No further representation were received following submission of the amended plans.
9.2 All representations can be viewed on www.dorsetforyou.com.
10. PLANNING ISSUES:
Principle of development Impact upon visual amenity, Dorset AONB and wider landscape Impact upon neighbouring amenity
11. PLANNING ASSESSMENT:
Principle of Development
11.1 Local Plan Policy and the National Planning Policy Framework supports the presumption in favour of Sustainable Development. Policy SUS2 relates specifically the distribution of development, and although this site is outside the DDB alterations and extensions to existing buildings are supported in principle.
11.2 With regard to Policy HOUS6, which relates to residential development outside the DDB, the proposal would add one small bedroom to the existing property which would fall within the 40% guidance figure and is not considered to change the character of the dwelling. The studio/outbuilding is considered to be of appropriate scale to be subordinate to the main dwelling.
Impact upon Visual Amenity, Dorset AONB and wider landscape.
11.3 The extension at the front of the dwelling would retain the bungalow appearance of the dwelling in the street scene. In particular, there is no overall increase in roof height and the overall footprint and amount of built form would not increase. The proposed materials are considered acceptable, subject to
Page 108 submission and agreement of details, given that there is a mix of architectural styles and materials in the street scene.
11.4 The scale of the footprint of the outbuilding would be appropriate and commensurate with the size of the rear garden. The ridge height of the dual pitch roof would be 4.5m high which is an acceptable height for a garden outbuilding (permitted development height for a dual pitch outbuilding situated within 10m of a dwelling being 4m).
11.5 The proposed materials for the outbuilding are timber cladding and slate, tile or felt roof. Again subject to condition these are considered to be acceptable and would be sympathetic with the main dwelling and the surroundings.
11.6 The outbuilding would be screened by the residential built form to the south from the road and seafront scene.
11.7 Overall, it is considered that the proposals would cause no significant harm to visual amenity and would preserve the quality of the wider landscape and Dorset AONB.
Impact upon Neighbouring Amenity
11.8 The extension to the main dwelling would not cause harm to neighbouring amenity. The veranda would not allow any greater views into neighbouring properties.
11.9 The outbuilding would be set well away from the roadside neighbouring dwellings (over 40m) and it is considered that the proposed outbuilding would not be significantly harmful to the cottages at the rear. The nearest ‘Plum Cottage’ building would be situated 20m to the north east and would not allow any greater views onto this property or cause harm from massing, overshadowing or loss of daylight.
11.10 It should be noted that with regard to the use of the outbuilding - the applicant proposes the use as a single storey domestic/garden amenity or studio room for a use incidental to the enjoyment of the main dwelling.
11.11 As such, it is considered that the outbuilding would cause no significant impact on neighbouring amenity.
12. CONCLUSION/SUMMARY:
The proposed works comply with the policies of the adopted Local Plan and the relevant sections of the National Planning Policy Framework as already listed.
Page 109 The proposed works would not harm visual amenity or the quality of the wider landscape and Dorset AONB.
The proposed works would not cause any significant to harm neighbouring amenity.
13. RECOMMENDATION:
Approve subject to the following conditions:
1) The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.
Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans:
Proposed Ground Floor Plan - Drawing Number 07 REV A received on 25/01/2018 Proposed Basement and Roof Plan - Drawing Number 08 REV A received on 25/01/2018 Proposed Elevations (1) - Drawing Number 09 received on 25/01/2018 Proposed Elevations (2) - Drawing Number 10 received on 25/01/2018 Proposed Sections - Drawing Number 11 received on 25/01/2018 Location Plan - Drawing Number 18-070-01 received on 25/06/2018 Garden Studio Elevations - Drawing Number 18-070-03 received on 14/06/2018 Garden Studio Floor Plan - Drawing Number 18-070-02 received on 14/06/2018
Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.
3) No development shall be commenced beyond damp proof level until details and samples of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed.
REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.
Page 110