Agenda item

Outline planning application with all matters reserved except for access for a development of up to nine dwellings and associated infrastructure.

The Case Officer presented the report for an application which was the subject of an appeal against non-determination (made under s78(2) of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)), the Council having failed to determine it within the statutory period. The report was brought before committee to seek their resolution as to how they would have determined the application if the power to do so still rested with them.

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 layout plan and views from the north, south, east, and western boundaries. Members were also shown the proposed site access, including a swept path analysis, and confirmed to members that all matters were reserved except for access. The Case Officer also provided members with details of public rights of way and nearby listed buildings.

Steve Savage, Transport development manager, discussed visibility splays as well as public rights of way and traffic movements. He highlighted to members that traffic and pedestrian movements are considered low. Mr Savage informed members that there were no objections from Highways, and therefore supported the application.

Public Participation

Residents spoke in objection. They felt as though the development would result in a loss of light and privacy. Visibility splays, listed buildings and impacts on the character and tranquillity of the area were discussed. The use of the lane which was predominantly used by walkers, runners, and cyclists was another topic and they urged members to consider the change of character that this would cause to the area and the dangers that would arise from a lack of passing places. Objectors did not feel as though the development was in a sustainable location and felt that it would cause significant issues with overlooking and overbearing on the existing dwellings. They did not feel as though it responded to the positive aspects of the character of the area and that it would have a detrimental impact on the village as residents did not see how additional homes would benefit the local area, nor could they be supported. 

Objectors also felt that work needed to be done to preserve the view, additionally they discussed several tree species and how they felt biodiversity would be destroyed. Residents could not support the development.

The Parish Council and the Local Ward member spoke against the development. Cllr Winder requested several points of clarification on the four-year housing supply and expressed his concerns regarding the single carriageway which lacked passing places and streetlights. The Parish Council also felt that the development was out of character and had no benefits. The Local Ward member echoed the views of The Parish Council and discussed the impact of extra traffic on the road. He highlighted to members that he was aware that each application was judged on its own merits, however, he did not support this development.

Members questions and comments

·       Flooding mitigation and attenuation

·       Concerns regarding character of the area

·       Members felt that the development had a negative impact on the listed building and the character of Musbury Lane.

·       Lack of affordable housing

·       Outside the settlement boundary

·       Loss of character amenity

·       Significant light pollution

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 proposal was made was made by Cllr Carole Jones, and seconded by Cllr Jon Andrews.

Decision: To advise the Planning Inspectorate that, if the power to determine the application still rested with the local planning authority, the decision would have been to refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Pond Farmhouse is a grade II listed building. The setting contributes significantly to the significance of this designated heritage asset. The application site is an important element of this setting providing clear legibility to the historic use of the farmhouse, its link to farming the land. The importance is enhanced by the ability to experience this setting from the well-trodden public right of way that traverses the application site and the openness of the boundary between the site and the farmhouse’s garden. The application fails to evidence how this setting will be preserved, the proposal resulting in the loss of the final undeveloped and farmed land within the building’s setting. There will be less than substantial harm to the significance, this harm not outweighed by the public benefits from the proposal which are tempered by the fact that the number of dwellings proposed are modest in quantum and all for open market housing with no affordable units. The proposal would conflict with policy 4 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (2016) as a result.

The quantum of development proposed would necessitate a non-frontage development which would be discordant with the prevailing frontage development of vernacular cottages along Musbury Lane. The application would be contrary to policy 4 24 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (2016).

The proposal would lead to a significant adverse change to the character and appearance of the area, the adversity increased due to the elevation of the site, the existence of the public right of way and the proximity of it to dwellings of a traditional vernacular architecture at road level opposite the site. It would impact on public views of the countryside, and diminish the tranquillity of the lane, which would be contrary to policies 4, and 24 of the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (2016).

The adverse impacts would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of providing 7 dwellings when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework (2021) taken as a whole.