Decision details

Decision: That the Council will no-longer defend the reason for refusal relating to the lack of on-site education infrastructure, which the Council had previously put forward in relation to the refusal of application P/OUT/2023/01166, providing that the S106 agreement ensures that the Council retains the right to require on-site primary school provision, and sets out an appropriate mechanism to enable a 2 Form Entry (2FE) primary school site to be identified (and transferred to the Council with an appropriate financial contribution towards construction) at a later stage. 

 

Planning appeal reference: APP/D1265/W/23/3336518 

Planning application: P/OUT/2023/01166 

Description of development: Mixed use development of up to 1,700 dwellings including affordable housing and care provision; 10,000sqm of employment space in the form of a business park; village centre with associated retail, commercial, community and health facilities; open space including the provision of suitable alternative natural green space (SANG); biodiversity enhancements; solar array, and new roads, access arrangements and associated infrastructure (Outline Application with all matters reserved apart from access off Hillbury Road) 

 

Location: Land To The South Of Ringwood Road Alderholt 

 

An application for the above development was considered by the Eastern Area Planning Committee on 5^th July 2023. The application refused for the following reasons: 

 

1.         The proposal would have adverse impacts on the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection Area (SPA), Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC), New Forest SPA/SAC and River Avon SAC and it has not been demonstrated that appropriate mitigation can or will be provided, contrary to Policy ME2 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – part 1 2014, the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020-2025 SPD, and paragraphs 180-182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This forms a clear reason for refusal of the proposal in accordance with NPPF para 11 d) i.  

 

2.         The proposed development would represent significant development contrary to the settlement hierarchy, which is intended to direct development to the most sustainable locations.  While facilities and transport options are proposed, it has not been demonstrated that these would be successful and viable in the long-term.  It has therefore not been demonstrated that the proposal would limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport modes.  Contrary to Policy KS2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraphs 73 and 105 of the NPPF.  

 

3.         The submitted masterplan does not demonstrate how the proposed uses will function well in terms of their relationship to each other and to the existing settlement of Alderholt.  In particular, the positioning of the local centre is not considered to be optimised to accommodate and sustain an appropriate mix of development.  Contrary to paragraph 130 of the NPPF.  

 

4.         The proposed development fails to make an appropriate contribution to affordable housing, contrary to Policy LN3 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – Part 1, 2014. The submitted viability assessment relies upon inputs and assumptions which have not been accepted by the Local Planning Authority and statutory consultees and has not been subject to independent scrutiny. As such, it has not been demonstrated that a policy-compliant level of affordable housing cannot be viably accommodated on the site, contrary to policy LN3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – Part 1, 2014. 

 

5.         The proposal includes uses defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as ‘main town centre uses’ expected to total 2,958sqm and include 1,259sqm of retail.  The application is not accompanied by a sequential test or retail impact assessment, contrary to Policy KS7 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraphs 87 and 90 of the NPPF. 

 

6.         The proposal does not include the on-site education infrastructure necessary to meet the needs of the development, and it is not possible to accommodate the projected increase in first-school age children within the existing St James First School.  The development would not ensure a sufficient choice of school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities, contrary to paragraph 96 of the NPPF. 

 

7.         The submitted Transport Assessment fails through the use of an unacceptable methodology and the inclusion of insufficient information to correctly identify the highways impacts arising from the proposal and how these could be mitigated.  It has not been demonstrated that there would not be an unacceptable impact on highways safety, nor that residual cumulative impacts on the road network would not be severe.  Contrary to Policy KS11 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraph 111 of the NPPF.  

 

8.         The proposal, by bringing additional traffic and recreational activity into the Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), would result in environmental impacts and a loss of tranquillity the extent of which has not been adequately identified and mitigated within the application.  Contrary to Policy HE3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraphs 174 and 176 of the NPPF.  

 

9.         Insufficient information has been provided regarding surface water management from the development.  It has not been demonstrated that the proposed surface water drainage scheme can be viably achieved on the site.  Contrary to Policy ME6 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – part 1, 2014, and paragraphs 167 and 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.  

 

The application is currently the subject of an appeal. For the reasons set out below, the decision has been taken that the Council will no-longer be defending the sixth reason for refusal relating to education provision, providing that the S106 agreement ensures that the Council retains the right to require on-site primary school provision, and sets out an appropriate mechanism to enable the school site to be identified (and planning permission sought) at a later stage. 

 

The decision not to defend the reason for refusal relating to education provision is taken under delegated powers, as set out in paragraph 139 of the Officer Scheme of Delegation (which forms part of the Council’s constitution). Paragraph 139 provides the following delegated powers: 

 

To undertake all action relating to any matter arising in respect of any appeal, call-in and/or other inquiry and/or hearing of whatever nature arising pursuant to any Town and Country Planning Legislation including for the avoidance of doubt but without prejudice to generality of the foregoing: 

 

(a) to determine any response required in relation to any procedural issue relating to any such matter including for the avoidance of doubt whether any such matter should be dealt with by means of written representation, hearing or public inquiry; 

 

(b) to determine any procedural issue relating to any such matter including the venue for the holding on any hearing and/or appeal; and/or 

 

(c) to determine whether or not to defend any reason for refusal. 

These delegated powers have been nominated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement via the Local Scheme of Nomination for Planning Services – Executive Director of Place. 

 

Application P/OUT/2023/01166 is currently the subject of an appeal, following refusal of the application by the Eastern Area Planning Committee. The appeal inquiry opened on 25 June 2024 and is currently ongoing. The sixth reason for refusal related to the lack of on-site education provision. The Council’s position, as submitted through evidence to the appeal, is that a 2FE first school site is required, to be fully funded by the appellant. The appellant’s position is that the existing St James First School can be expanded to provide the required education provision. However, the Council has concerns about the capacity of the existing school site to accommodate a new, larger school. These areas of dispute are summarised in a Topic Paper on Education Matters, which was submitted to the Inquiry. During the course of the Inquiry, and prior to Education Evidence being presented and cross-examined, the appellant has proposed that clauses could be added within the S106 agreement, which would ensure that the Council retains the right to require on-site primary school provision, and would set out an appropriate mechanism to enable a 2 Form Entry (2FE) primary school site to be identified (and transferred to the Council with an appropriate financial contribution towards construction) at a later stage, if the Council confirms that an on-site primary school is required. Having discussed the appellant’s proposed approach with the barristers acting for the Council, and with the Council’s Legal Business Partner, officers are satisfied that the proposed approach to school provision is acceptable and would ensure appropriate primary school provision can be secured, in the event that the appeal is allowed. As such, the decision is taken that the Council will no-longer defend the reason for refusal relating to education provision, subject to appropriate clauses being included within the S106 agreement. 

Alternative options considered and rejected: An alternative option would be to disagree with the proposed inclusion of new clauses within the S106 agreement to address education provision. However, having carefully considered the proposed approach, officers are of the view that there are no insurmountable legal or practical issues with the proposed approach. The proposed new clauses would ensure that the Council retains the right to require on-site school provision and would identify an appropriate mechanism to enable a 2 Form Entry (2FE) primary school site to be identified (and transferred to the Council with an appropriate financial contribution towards construction) at a later stage. As such, the proposed new clauses would meet the objective of securing appropriate education provision, and the alternative option (of disagreeing with this proposal) is rejected.