Agenda item

Modify a Planning Obligation (dated 10 October 2017) for planning permission 3/16/1446/OUT (“Outline planning permission for the demolition of The Hawthorns former horticultural nursery and bungalow and erection of up to 60 dwellings (including up to 50% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, primary vehicular access off Ringwood Road, pedestrian access off Broomfield Drive and associated ancillary works. 

 All matters to be reserved, with the exception of the site access points”) to reduce affordable housing provision from 50% to 15% (as 7 Affordable Rent homes); secure a Viability Review; secure a Biodiversity Compensation Payment; and secure the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). (Description amended 10 Feb 2023).

The Case Officer presented to members the modification of a Planning Obligation (dated 10 October 2017) for planning permission 3/16/1446/OUT (“Outline planning permission for the demolition of The Hawthorns former horticultural nursery and bungalow and erection of up to 60 dwellings (including up to 50% affordable housing), introduction of structural planting and landscaping, informal public open space, surface water flood mitigation and attenuation, primary vehicular access off Ringwood Road, pedestrian access off Broomfield Drive and associated ancillary works. All matters to be reserved, with the exception of the site access points”) to reduce affordable housing provision from 50% to 15% (as 7 Affordable Rent homes); secure a Viability Review; secure a Biodiversity Compensation Payment; and secure the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG). (Description amended 10 Feb 2023).

An update was provided by the Case Officer as follows:

·       Paragraphs 12.2 and 13.6 of the District Valuer’s report refer to 22% when they should be 15%.

·       Abnormal costs noted in the District Valuer’s table should be the same as the developer’s abnormal costs.

With the aid of visual representation, members were shown the location of the application site as well as the proposed layout and design. The Case Officer informed members of the history of the site. Members were informed that the original application was initially refused by the Council and then allowed at appeal. As part of the appeal decision, it had been conditioned to allow for 45 dwellings. The Case Officer also discussed that there would be provision for affordable housing on site, however this application was to reduce it from 50% to 15%. Members were informed that objections had been noted but 15% affordable housing was deemed acceptable based on an assessment carried out by the District Valuation Service (DVS). Submitted drawings showed the location of affordable housing on the site and members were informed that housing officers had been consulted.

Public Participation

Mr Walker raised his concerns regarding the planning application and informed members that he was disappointed that it had gotten this far. He hoped members would refuse this application for a reduction in affordable housing.

The applicant hoped that the members would grant planning permission. Mr Lofthouse discussed Pennyfarthing’s background and experience as a local house builder. He also spoke about issues raised by Natural England in relation to the development. He praised the officers report as it discussed the unique elements of the site and informed members that there were significant impacts on the viability of the development. He highlighted the affordable housing reduction and hoped members would approve the officer’s recommendation.

The Parish Councillor was pleased to see that 15% affordable housing was provided, as the complete loss of affordable housing would have been detrimental to the area given they have already lost out on other development and there was a local need like most areas. The Parish Councillor hoped that members considered the value of affordable housing and not just its monitory value.

Cllr Tooke, the local ward member, spoke in objection to the development. He highlighted concerns regarding there being a need in Alderholt for family homes and didn’t believe that the proposed development was in keeping with the local need. He referred to a previous objection to the reserved matter application from Natural England. Cllr Tooke believed that the original provision of 50% affordable housing should be retained. Therefore, he hoped members would refuse the application.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding details on slide 13

·       Points of clarification regarding SANG capacity credits, timescales, and phosphate mitigation.

·       Comments regarding if there had been any design issues in relation to the site.

·       Clarification regarding any beneficiaries of the SANG.

·       Comments regarding a decrease in affordable housing units

·       Viability issues of the site

·       Local figures of homelessness had increased drastically. Questions regarding scope on the completion of the development, for sufficient profits to contribute to other Dorset Council affordable housing.

·       Condition for a section 106A agreement

·       Original 50% housing under volatile markets is now reduced to 15%.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to grant was proposed by Cllr Shane Bartlett subject to a review clause at 90% completion and seconded by Cllr Robin Cook.

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to conditions.