Agenda item

Erection of up to 7 dwellings with associated access, parking and landscaping (outline application to determine access only)

The Case Officer presented to members the erection of up to 7 dwellings with associated access, parking, and landscaping (outline application to determine access only).

With the aid of visual representation, members were shown aerial photographs of the current and existing site as well as surrounding areas. Members were reminded that there was no settlement plan for Marnhull. Details regarding where the site would be situated, nearby existing dwellings as well as the proposed site access. Regarding access, members were informed that the road was at risk of surface water flooding whereas the elevated site wasn’t. The Case Officer also informed members about the tree preservation order on any remaining trees on the site as well as providing detailed regarding attenuation of the site.

Steve Savage, Transport Development Manager, informed members that the site access was deemed acceptable and that there would be low traffic movement from the small-scale development. He discussed the single carriageway and that there was no segregated foot way, which was typical in rural Dorset. Mr Savage highlighted that the site access was safe which would have been suitable for all road users. He provided assurance regarding visibility splays not being severely impacted. There were no objections from highways.

Public Participation

Residents spoke in objection of the planning application as they did not believe it was a desired nor sustainable development for Marnhull. They believed that the development was out of character of the local rural area and were disappointed that there was no provision for affordable housing. Objectors also discussed the site access; they believed it would not be fit for purpose but rather dangerous to those using the road as a means of access to the centre. Residents also discussed their disappointment of the development on the grounds of harm to the landscape, biodiversity loss and flooding. They discussed how woodlands had been destroyed and a result of this was an increase in flooding. They also reminded members that Marnhull did not have enough local amenities to support the development. They believed that the level of harm outweighed the benefits and hoped members would refuse.

Paul Harrington spoke as the agent in support of the application. He informed members that he had worked on many completed schemes and had worked closely with highways and the planning department for the proposed development. Mr Harrington noted the number of objections, however, he believed there would be benefits to the site. He informed members that trees were cut due to the voltage of wiring, but remaining trees and new replacement trees would be protected to ensure an increase in biodiversity. He assured members that adequate space for vehicles had been considered. Mr Harrington also informed members that homes would be delivered to help contribute to the character of the village.

Members questions and comments

·       Clarification regarding the number of road users on Musbury Lane and amenities.

·       Consideration of landscaping. Members commented on whether the replacement of trees had been considered to mirror the site before the previous cutting of trees.

·       Comments regarding local needs for affordable housing. Members referred to the Development Plan which showed the local need for affordable housing.

·       Mitigation of flooding.

·       Clarification regarding emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles having sufficient access.

·       Members shared their disappointment regarding the removal of trees and the pond.

·       Concerns regarding site access.

·       Significant loss of biodiversity.

·       Clarification regarding whether there had been an increase in flooding due to the removal of trees. 

·       The site was outside the settlement boundary and members felt it wasn’t a substantial development.

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 refuse was proposed by Cllr Carole Jones and seconded by Cllr Val Pothecry.

Decision: To refuse planning permission.

In accordance with Procedural Rule 8.1 the committee voted to extend the duration of the meeting.