Agenda item

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).

The Case Officer gave members an update:

 

·       3G Sports pitch contribution- material however proportionate contribution would be in the range £101,673- £142,342 (applicant has offered £1million).

·       Tennis contribution- can be considered material only as part of recreation ground extension.

·       Public Art Contribution- not material.

·       Change to recommended reason for refusal 4

·       Updated Hampshire County Council Response

·       Updated Dorset Wildlife Trust Response

·       Updated Fordingbridge Town Council response

·       Ellingham, Harbridge and Ibsley Parish Council response

·       Additional public responses

 

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the site plan, existing nearby settlement boundaries and existing agricultural buildings were included. Members were also shown special protection areas near the site. Details including proposed site access, illustrative masterplans, housing mix, existing nearby facilities, including doctor surgeries and local schools, and proposed employment uses were also provided. The Case Officer also informed members of the proposed phasing plans. In addition to this, concerns from National Highways were raised, members were informed that more data was needed, particularly clarity of bus services, long term viability and costing.

 

The presentation also included details of the proposed education provision which hadn’t been accepted by Dorset Education. In addition to this, the Landscape strategy and integration of hedgerows were also outlined. The Case Officer also highlighted key concerns regarding site sustainability. Members were informed regarding the impacts on Habitats sites and it was explained that an Appropriate Assessment had not been able to conclude that impacts on these could be adequately mitigated.

 

An Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment was explained, and members were informed that there were no visual impacts on the AONB. Other impacts arising on the AONB were explained. Photographs from southwestern and the southern end of Ringwood Road and predicted photographs of the site in several years’ time were also shown to members of the committee. Details regarding the drainage strategy and planning obligations were also provided. The officer’s recommendation was to refuse for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.

 

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

 

 

Public Participation

Residents and the Parish Council’s spoke in objection to the application. They felt as though the development was unsustainable and didn’t feel as though it was in the right location, especially for the scale of the development. Concerns were raised regarding the large site bounded to have delays which would have further costing impacts. Mr S Godsell also discussed the reduction in affordable housing and felt the applicants promise of a village centre was only dependant on retailers wanting to invest and buy plots in such a rural location. Another area of discussion from objectors was the impacts on highways. Mr C English informed members that if they chose to approve, there would be additional traffic which would cause chaos. He felt as though the impact on all roads had been underestimated and there would be detrimental harm to verges and banks.

 

Mr R Burden spoke for Cranborne Chase AONB Partnership. He felt that a development near the AONB setting should have been sensitively considered and that there had been no realistic proposals to avoid or mitigate the impacts. Objectors also raised their concerns around residents needing to own cars to get to and from Alderholt. This then impacts the environment and adds to their concerns around traffic. An hourly bus service would not be a good alternative; therefore, they didn’t feel as though it could have possibly been considered as a sustainable development. Mr M Allen felt as though the development would be a small town on a green field site and didn’t feel there was a local need.

 

Objectors also discussed their disappointment in the applicant for proposing a development that had not considered the needs of Alderholt, Mr S Butler informed members that Alderholt’s need for social housing was low and felt as though they would be creating competition between the existing and proposed village centre. He also mentioned the impacts on education and felt that the school would be oversubscribed. Objectors informed members that they did not want this application and felt that the significant minor benefits were not outbalanced by the risks and hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation to refuse.

 

Ms J Pickering spoke on behalf of the NHS and was not in support or objection to the application. She highlighted to members the pressures that NHS staff were currently under and discussed the health care services that were currently available to residents of Alderholt. Ms J Pickering informed members that the current Alderholt surgery was small and required a lot of renovations to make it more suitable for residents. In her presentation, she concluded how many additional NHS patients would be a result of the proposed development, she informed members that if the development was approved, additional work would need to take place and funding would need to be considered.

 

Both the applicant and agent spoke in support of the development. They believed that the site would deliver much needed homes with a mixture of housing types without impacting the green belt. Mr N Jacobs felt that Alderholt was capable of strategic growth and the development would help to enhance the sustainability of an area in Dorset as well as providing residents with a wide range of facilities. The Agent referenced the out-of-date local plan and highlighted to members that the applicant would ask to defer the application and work with officers to overcome any issues and make the necessary amendments.

 

The applicant, Mr M Hewett discussed the benefits of the development, in particularly, the creation of a thriving community and additional doctor’s surgery and school. He informed members that he had responded to the concerns raised by local schools. He highlighted the investment into education which would solve any issues previously raised by schools. Mr M Hewett also discussed the proposed introduction of an hourly bus service, allocated open space and 13km of cycle ways to promote recreation. He felt as though the benefits to the community were significant and hoped members would grant a short extension to allow for more cooperation between himself and officers.

 

Cllr Errington spoke on behalf of Ellingham, Harbridge, and Ibsley Parish Council. It was reiterated to members that the proposed site was situated within a rural location and was far too excessive in scale and was not within a sustainable location. In addition to this, concerns were also raised regarding traffic and felt as though the completion of the proposed development would leave Alderholt in confusion as to whether it was a village or town. Cllr Errington hoped members would refuse the proposed development.

 

Cllr Logan spoke on behalf of Alderholt Parish Council. She fully conferred with the officer’s recommendation to refuse as well as the concerns raised by the residents and other Parish Council. The Parish Council felt as though the site was within an unsustainable location and believed it was contrary to the NPPF. Cllr Logan confirmed that she had read the comprehensive report and believed that the proposed development should be refused for all reasons set out in the officer’s report. In her presentation, Cllr Logan discussed the lack of connectivity and felt as though the proposed village centre would cause direct competition with Alderholt’s existing facilities. She also felt as though the local road infrastructure was inadequate and the long-term adverse impacts would be detrimental. The Parish Council felt as though the impacts outweigh the benefits, therefore, they supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

 

 

Members questions and comments

·       Praised the officer’s report and presentation.

·       Roads are narrow and are not suitable.

·       Added facilities would solve some issues but would not outweigh the significant drawbacks.  

·       Issues relating to transport and highways.

·       Clarification around mineral extraction prior to construction.

·       Maintenance of mature hedges.

·       Alderholt remains very isolated.

·       Inadequate road infrastructure.

·       Concerns regarding surface water drainage.

·       Questions regarding Alderholt being developed into a town.

·       Clarification of the impacts that the proposal would have on education.

 

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 Shane Bartlett, and seconded by Cllr Robin Cook.

 

Decision: To support the officer’s recommendation for refusal, subject to the amended reason for refusal for affordable housing and viability.