Agenda item

Demolition of existing buildings and structures and erection of a continuing care retirement community with up to 330 extra care units (Use Class C2) and up to 60 bed care home (Use Class C2), associated communal and care facilities, landscaping and open space, Alternative Natural Greenspace (ANG), parking and infrastructure, means of access and internal access roads. Use of land as nature conservation area, to include ecological enhancements and restoration (outline application to determine access only with all other matters reserved).

The Case Officer provided members with an update as follows;

·       Paragraph 15.150 refers to the site being adjacent to the Avon Valley Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV) as identified the East Dorset District Council Area of Great Landscape Value SPG. This designation does also extend into the site in some areas.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the Case Officer explained the planning application to members. Details including photographs of site access, proposed designs, site location and surrounding settlement boundaries was discussed. The Case Officer provided members with aerial photographs, drone footage and panoramas of the site as well as information regarding the current use of site.

Members were informed that a recent assessment concluded that there were limited adverse impacts on the site due to its use for racing. However, it was noted that undiscovered contamination areas could be possible. There were some contaminated areas on site which posed a low to moderate risk to the environment. The presentation included photographs of the contamination strategy that had been carried out. The Case Officer also informed members that the site was within the Green Belt Boundary and was surrounded by an Area of Great Landscape Value (AGLV). Details regarding heritage assets near the site were also provided.

With the aid of photographs, The Case Officer presented the proposed site plans, site use and access using illustrative masterplans. Illustrative green infrastructure strategy details were also discussed, in particular, walking routes, viewpoints, seating areas and alternative natural greenspaces. The Case Officer also gave details of bus routes and unconnected national cycle networks. Members were informed that the proposal fell to make a contribution to affordable housing, but that the applicant had declined to agree to this. The presentation also included information regarding vehicle tracking and access parameter plan, visibility splays as well as existing and proposed Biodiversity Net Gain plans.

The Case Officer provided details regarding Natural England objections and discussed the outcomes. Members were also shown the visual effects of site using different viewpoints from Dark Skies map and images from lighting surveys. The presentation also included details of the Water Drainage Strategy and proposed soakaways. The Case Officer concluded her presentation by stating that the Green Belt would be negatively impacted. The proposal was considered to cause harm to Habitats Sites which could not be mitigated, and to have unacceptable impacts on protected areas of particular importance, the Officer’s recommendation was to refuse.

Public Participation

Jay Trim spoke in objection to the proposal. She explained that the site had created a supportive community. Ms Trim also discussed how the Local area plans had not been considered by the applicant, therefore the application should not go ahead. Members were also informed that protected species were still existent on the site, the proposed development could be damaging. Ms Trim also discussed the narrow road which wasn’t overly accessible, as well as there being no local need for care homes in the area. The objector had concerns regarding where their newfound community would go if the site was granted.

The agent spoke in favour of the development. He discussed the contamination on the site and believed that the proposed development would bring several benefits. In particular, the creation of new jobs and housing for an aging population which would reduce pressure on national health services. The agent believed that the response from Natural England was flawed and was disappointed with the outcome. Mr Garnett informed members that the site was a unique opportunity to transform a degraded site, he felt that doing nothing was not an option.

Members questions and comments

·       Members thanked the officer for a comprehensive presentation.

·       The many objections were noted, particularly from Natural England.

·       Comments regarding condition of the site.

·       Concerns regarding surface water strategies.

·       Concerns regarding site access for emergency vehicles and evacuation.

·       Concerns regarding scattered properties and facilities being distanced from some properties. They would not be as accessible for some.

·       Desperate need for houses for younger people.

·       The site may not be pristine but could be quite biodiverse. Offered a controlled version but not necessarily better.

·       Any concerns from water drainage to Avon Valley.

·       Members questioned the need for the scale of development in the area.

·       Responses from minimals and waste.

·       Concerns regarding pet provenance on the site.

·       Members noted the adverse impacts and lack of affordable housing.

·       Constraints outweigh the benefits.

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 approve the officer’s recommendation to refuse planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Bill Trite and seconded by Cllr Mike Dyer.

Decision: To approve the officer’s recommendation to refuse.

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