Decision details

That the Council will no longer defend the remaining reasons for refusal relating to ‘affordable housing provision’ and ‘applying the sequential test’ which the Council had previously put forward in relation to the refusal of application P/FUL/2024/04613. This will mean that Council is no-longer defending the planning appeal for this application. 

Appeal reference: APP/D1265/W/25/3372602 

Planning application: P/FUL/2024/04613 

Location: Land rear of 156-172, South Street, Bridport DT6 3NP 

Description of development: Redevelopment for erection of retirement living accommodation comprising 48 apartments, 25 cottages, communal facilities, access, car parking and landscaping to create an integrated retirement community. 

The planning application was refused under delegated authority on 21/03/2025.  

The application was refused for reasons relating to highways/layout, ecology, affordable housing provision and applying the sequential test for flood risk. On 24 October 2025, the decision was taken that the Council would no longer be defending the reasons for refusal relating to highways/layout and ecology, as the appellant had submitted amendments and additional information to address these matters. 

For the reasons set out below, the decision has now been taken that the Council will no-longer be defending the remaining reasons for refusal relating to affordable housing and applying the sequential test for flood risk. This means that the Council will no-longer be defending the planning appeal for this application.  

The decision not to defend these reasons for refusal 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. 

Following refusal under delegated powers of application P/FUL/2024/04613 the applicant has appealed the decision to the Secretary of State and requested public inquiry. The inquiry is due to open on 13 January 2026.  

At the time of the planning application, the applicant was not proposing any affordable housing provision. West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan Policy HOUS1 (iii) allows applicants to justify a lower level of AH provision than 35%. A lower level of provision will only be permitted if there are good reasons to bring the development forward and the assessment shows that it is not economically viable to make the minimum level of provision being sought.  

It has been agreed with the appellant that a policy compliant 35% affordable housing is not viable. It is also acknowledged that this is contaminated land and a brownfield site within the settlement boundary of Bridport and there will be abnormal costs associated with the development. 

The applicant has now confirmed that they will provide an affordable housing contribution of £500,000 toward off-site affordable housing provision. This equates to approximately 10 units (or 14% of the total number of dwellings). This compares to zero affordable housing contribution at the time the application was submitted. The Council’s viability evidence indicates that a higher affordable housing contribution could be viable, and the appellant’s viability evidence indicates that a lower contribution could be justified. The remaining shortfall in the affordable housing contribution (assessed against the Council’s viability evidence) needs to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme. 

In addition to the harm arising due to the shortfall in the affordable housing contribution, the Council has also identified harm due to the failure to provide a balanced development containing a mix of housing, and a failure to pass the sequential test for flood risk. However, in relation to the failure to pass the sequential test for flood risk, no real-world harm has been identified, other than the policy conflict. 

The benefits of the scheme include the provision of open market housing, the provision of an affordable housing contribution, development of brownfield land, efficient use of land, sustainable location of the site, economic benefits and ecological enhancements. 

The Council cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and based on the particular circumstances of this case, it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As such, the decision has been taken that the Council will no-longer be opposing the grant of planning permission for the proposed development, subject to suitable conditions and completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure off-site contributions. 

The Inspector will need to reach his own conclusions when weighing the harms and benefits of the scheme, and it will be for the Inspector to decide as to how matters now progress. 

If the Council’s chooses to reject the offer of a £500k contribution towards affordable housing provision, it will be required to continue defending these reasons for refusal. This option is rejected because, taking account of the benefits of the scheme and the harms arising, it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. 

No members consulted.