Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

Members were asked to consider planning application 6/2019/0126 for the erection of 2 new dwellings and associated infrastructure and to modify existing access at The Paddock, Barrow Hill, Bere Regis. The Committee was being asked to consider this application given that there was a conflict between the adopted Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan and the proposals, with officers recommending approval of the scheme. Members understanding of the proposal had benefited from a site visit – held two days previously – providing them with the opportunity to be able to see at first hand what the application entailed, with the property’s footprint being marked out to assist.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation and taking into consideration the

provisions of the Update Sheet appended to these minutes, officers put into

context what the main proposals and planning issues of the development

were; how these were to be progressed; and what these entailed. The application sought to erect two detached dwellings, initially proposed to be three 3 dwellings, but with one now being omitted due to an objection from the

Council’s Archaeologist on the potential impacts upon non designated historic

assets.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, dimensions

and design of the development, and the materials to be used, with the presentation also confirming what the highways, parking and access arrangements being proposed would be; how the development would look and its setting; and showed the development’s relationship with the characteristics of the surrounding village development and landscape. Members were provided with views across the site from various directions. How the development would be screened and how the hedgerow would be managed and reprofiled to provide for better visibility were all described. Officers also explained the context of the development in relation to the characteristics of Bere Regis and its landscape, what non-designated historic archaeological assets around the site there were; what the drainage and water management arrangements would be; the topography of the area – including the elevations of the site; what conservation considerations needed to be addressed to provide for the necessary Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG); and the relationship between the development and its encompassing Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). The whole site was within the Bere Regis Conservation Area, with listed buildings located in the nearby vicinity.

 

It was confirmed that the site was within the Bere Regis Conservation Area but outside the defined settlement boundary in the Purbeck Local Plan Part 1. Moreover, as the southern part - and majority - of the site was defined in the adopted Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan as being within the settlement boundary and had been allocated in the adopted Purbeck Local Plan for residential development, officers confirmed that the application should be considered on its individual merits within those parameters. What both the Local and Neighbourhood Plans were designed to achieve; how this would be done; and the reasoning for this was all explained in detail by officers so that members had

a clear understanding of how it applied to this application, what considerations needed to be taken into account and why the officer’s recommendation was being made as it was.

 

In particular, access to the site would be from a new point on Barrow Hill, with the hedgerows being reprofiled to accommodate this and to provide for improved visibility.

 

Officers considered that, notwithstanding the modest modifications to the amount of housing and alternative access arrangements – with the new one being provided on Barrow Hill, rather than from Tower Hill, owing to the practicalities in engineering this given what constraints there were by virtue of the significant difference in level - for the reasons outlined in their presentation and in the report, put into context, the principle of the application remained in accordance with the relevant policies of the Development Plan. The scheme was seen to contribute towards delivering a number of public benefits and enhancements to the locality, including a new footpath across The Paddock.

 

Given this, and in the absence of any identified material considerations

that would outweigh such matters, officers were recommending that the application be approved.

 

Following the formal consultation exercise a number of objections had been received, notably from Bere Regis Parish Council, in that the development was contrary to the explicit provisions of the Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan and what this was designed to achieved. Their reasoning for this was set out in the Committee report and later alluded to, in part, by the Parish Council speaker.

 

The opportunity was then provided for speakers to address the Committee.

Jill Cooper opposed the development in that she considered the access arrangements to be unacceptable given what dangerous manoeuvres took place in accessing and exiting Barrow Hill and what physical constraints governed this. She also considered the development to be out of keeping with that part of the Conservation Area and would begin to urbanise an otherwise open space.

 

Tony Bates - a Parish Councillor and one of the architects of the Neighbourhood Plan - considered that the adverse effect  the development would have on the ecology and archaeological value of The Paddock was good reason for opposing the application.

 

Jenny Piercy considered the effort that had gone into developing the Neighbourhood Plan should be recognised and that, in being eroded in this way, showed a disregard of its importance. In particular, she considered that the proposals would compromise road safety and the development would be too conspicuous in its siting.

 

Patrick Hamilton considered that this development would compromise the whole rural and historic character of that part of the village and should be opposed. Once again mention was made of how visible the development was likely to be and its perceived proximity to dwellings on the southern side of Tower Hill compromised privacy. He considered that the development might be more acceptable if it was to be lowered into the landscape and the access remained as prescribed in the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

Paul Harrington, the agent, endorsed the principles of the application as it complied with the provisions of the Local and Neighbourhood Plans in land being allocated for residential development and that the modest modifications being proposed were purely to address the practicalities of access and how this was able to be best achieved. Satisfactory solutions had been found to the issues raised over earthworks and drainage and, whilst he appreciated the concerns being expressed, the provisions of the application all accorded with the necessary policies and raised no adverse material planning considerations. On that basis he asked that the application be approved in contributing to the delivery of residential accommodation in accordance with the Plan.

 

Parish Councillor Ian Ventham considered that the proposals were fundamentally flawed in that due regard should formally be given to any Neighbourhood Plan and this was apparently being disregarded in this instance. A democratic process had given legitimacy to the Plan and its provisions should be upheld. As with other speakers, of concern was the prominence of the development and how the access arrangements had been changed to the determent of the character of the area. To agree to the application would set a precedent and be seen to undermine this democratic process and its value.

 

The views of one of the local Ward Members, Councillor Peter Wharf, was contained in the Update Sheet, considering that the application should be refused as the proposed new access arrangements fundamentally changed the nature of the application, in being in direct conflict with the Neighbourhood Plan.

 

In line with the provisions of both National and Local Authority Plans and policies, assessments had been made by officers - in discussion with both the Highways and Conservation Officers - to ensure conformity with what modifications were necessary and acceptable, in the interests of the application being progressed satisfactorily. Both the Conservation Officer and the Highways Officer explained their reasoning for coming to the conclusions they had. 

 

Anna Lee confirmed that the Neighbourhood Plan provided for residential development on that site, with the modifications being made purely for practical reasons, with the access arrangements also addressing road safety concerns as well. Given this, officers had concluded that there was a need to recognise what weight this should be given to that being originally proposed. On balance is was adjudged that the modifications being made carried the greater weight, in being able to provide for a satisfactory solution. She was confident that, given the circumstances, the proposals would be defensible at any appeal hearing, with the reasoning for it likely to be accepted.

 

Committee debate focussed on the value of the Neighbourhood Plan and its importance in setting the parameters within which any development took place and what this entailed. The majority of members considered that the value of neighbourhood plans, and what they were designed to achieve for the benefit of a particular community and its needs, should be treated with importance and integrity and that, unless there were exceptional circumstances, any development should be in accordance with this. Members saw no reason that any case could be made in this instance to compromise the integrity of the Plan and, on that basis, considered that its provisions and virtues – having been democratically agreed - should be maintained as they stood.

 

Of particular concern was the prominence of the development in the landscape, with the potential for properties in Tower Hill to be overlooked, leading to residents’ privacy being compromised. They understood that this area had been allocated for residential development but considered that any development should be set lower into the landscape, so as to be less conspicuous over the wider site and to maintain the setting of the Conservation Area. In agreeing any application, they asked that there be limitation placed on the height that the Tower Hill bordering hedgerow could be trimmed.

 

Moreover, they felt that they would be unable to approve this application by reason of the orientation and design of the dwellings - in compounding the opportunity for properties to the south of Tower Hill to be overlooked; and that the proposed access, and the extent of hard standing, would result in an incongruous layout, to the detriment of the character of the Conservation Area, especially in Barrow Hill. However other members considered that the hardstanding turning area would improve accessibility within Barrow Hill and the ease with which vehicles could manoeuvre in and out.

 

Related issues which the Committee considered should be given greater consideration before any application could be approved was the potential for traffic generation on the narrow rural lanes; that access to the site should conform with the provisions of the Plan, rather than there being a new one constructed; drainage and water management issues; and this being seen to set a precedent for future development proposals.

 

Notwithstanding the assessment made by officer’s in coming to their recommendation, the majority of members were of the view that the principles of the Neighbourhood Plan, what it stood for and what it was designed to

achieve, should be adhered to and remain valid, relevant and applicable, in being seen to empower the will of local communities. The views of the Parish Council, in being a primary consultee, should be given significant weight and play a key part in influencing what decision the Committee came to. Any grant of permission should assure that the character of that area was maintained and enhanced and felt that this application would not achieve this.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having

understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken

into account the officer’s report, what they had heard at the meeting from the

case officer, legal advisor and those invited speakers - particularly the views

of the Parish Council and local ward Member - the Committee were satisfied

in their understanding of what all of this entailed. On being put to the vote the

Committee considered that, notwithstanding the assessments made by

officers, they could not agree to what was being recommended on the basis that it would be detrimental to the character of the Conservation Area, especially in Barrow Hill; was not be in keeping with other development in that Area and; was not in accordance with the principles or provisions

the Neighbourhood Plan, which should be given considerable weight owing to the rigorous process it had gone through in being adopted as it had. Accordingly, it was agreed

 

Resolved

That planning application 6/2019/0126 be refused.

 

Reason for Decision

1)The proposal by reason of orientation and design of the dwellings, the proposed access and amount of hard standing would result in an incongruous layout to the detriment of the character of the Conservation Area, especially in Barrow Hill. As such the proposal is contrary to Policies D (Design) and LHH (Landscape, Historic Environment and Heritage) of the adopted Purbeck Local Plan Part 1, the made Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan and the aims and objectives of the NPPF, especially Paragraphs 189 and 192.  

2) Refused Informative - Refused Plans. The plans that were considered by the Council in making this decision are: 18108.12A,18108.13,18108.14B, 18108.15A, 18108.16,  18108.17A, 18108.18, 18108.21A,18108.22B and 18108.23C

3)Statement of positive and proactive working: In accordance with paragraphs 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council took a positive and creative approach to development proposals focused on solutions.  The Council worked with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. For this application: The applicant/ agent and the Council have worked together to consider all matters. The application was recommended for approval by officers. However, elected Members resolved to refuse the application.

4)Informative Note - Community Infrastructure Levy. If planning permission was subsequently granted for this development at appeal, it would be subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 2008. A CIL liability notice would then be issued by the Council that required a financial payment, full details of which would be explained in the notice.