Hybrid planning application for the phased development for up to 490 No.
dwellings and non-residential uses comprising:
Outline planning
application (to determine access) to develop land by the erection of up to 340
No. dwellings (Use Class C3), local centre with flexible floorspace including
Commercial, Business and Services (Use Class E), Drinking Establishments and
hot food takeaways (Use Class Sui Generis) and Local Community (Use Class F2);
land for a three-form entry primary school and associated playing pitches (Use
Class F1 Learning and non-residential institutions); form public open space,
replacement allotments including allotment building, new sports pitches,
parking, access, infrastructure, landscaping, and carry out ancillary and site
preparation works, including demolition of existing buildings and removal of
existing allotments.
Full planning application to erect 150 No. dwellings (Use Class C3), form public open space, attenuation basins, parking, access, infrastructure, landscaping, and carry out ancillary and site preparation works.
Minutes:
Cllr Tim Cook had not taken part in the site visit;
therefore, it was agreed that he would not take part in the debate and would
leave the room.
Mike Garrity, Head of Planning, informed members that
there had been some changes to legislation and legal advice had been sought. He
informed members that they were to determine whether the previous decision to
grant would have been different and that formally, planning permission had not
been granted. The Head of Planning noted that the material changes had not
changed the officer recommendation, and this would be set out in further detail
in the officer’s presentation. In the interest of transparency, Mr Garrity made
reference to an email which had been circulated prior to the meeting by the
Local Ward member who had referred to the secretary of state, at this time,
there had been no objections from Dorset Council and the committee were to
continue determining the application, prior to the previous committee meeting
which was held in October 2023 where members received a detailed presentation
and debate.
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
location map, illustrative masterplans and constraints maps were shown. It was
confirmed that the applicant had not submitted any additional or new
information since the previous committee decision. Mr Lennis informed members
that the section 106 agreement had been working positively and updated them of
the National Planning Policy framework updates, including changes to section 3
of the NPPF which sought to support the beauty in placemaking, it was supported
with a bespoke and detailed design code. Changes had also been made to the
Housing Land Supply; it was previously 5 years, but current changes have now
made it 4 years. The Housing Delivery test was now advised to be at 75% as
opposed to 110%. These arrangements would apply for a two-year period from the
publication date of the revised framework. Blandford Neighbourhood Plan was
also updated and was made with a detailed design code. The Case Officer made
note to section 15, outlining changes to footnote 62, impacts of agricultural
land as well as providing detail to changes to Levelling UP and Regeneration
Act. The proposed enhancement would further the purpose for which this national
landscape was designated.
Members were reminded of the original officer
presentation with a comparison of the updated conditions, providing context of
the site. The Case Officer outlined the application, providing visual aids of
parameter plans, illustrative designs of building scale. Details of tree
protection plans, and open space strategies were highlighted. There were no
objections received from highways officers and no changes were made to
paragraph 60 of the NPPF. The officer’s recommendation was to consider the
recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and to legislation through
the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act are such that they should not result in a
change to the overall planning balance previously made on this application.
Members recognised that the benefits of this scheme were ‘many and weighty’ and
would ‘boost the supply’ of housing, outweighing the identified conflict with
the development plan.
Public Participation
Mr Richard Burden was the first objector to address the
committee. His representation stated that agricultural land would have been
destroyed by streets and housing. He noted that the NPPF gave great weight to
the enhancement of protecting landscapes. He did not feel as though this
application complied nor did it give protection. Mr Burden looked at the
revised section and, in his opinion, had been understated. He referred to the
site sloping fields which were clearly visible, disrupting views to and from the
landscape. The objector did not see any benefits and highlighted the need to
re-examine the NPPF. He hoped the committee would reconsider and refuse.
Mr
Rupert Hardy spoke in objection. He highlighted the harm to the AONB and noted
that the officer’s report suggested that the land was not significant, however,
in his opinion, the loss of the land would have had significant effects and
caused harm. Mr Hardy’s representation on behalf of the CPRE noted the
importance of protecting Dorset countryside. He commented on planning targets
and as they had been met, did not feel as though there was a need for further
development. Mr Hardy asked the committee to either refuse or defer the
proposal.
Mr
Martin Richley, a Pimperne resident, spoke in
objection to the proposal. He raised concerns regarding impacts on the AONB,
Cranborne Chase National Landscape as well as potential harm to a range of
animals, birds, and bats. He did not feel as though the proposal was situated
in a sustainable location nor did it support an important gap between town and
country. Mr Richley highlighted the existing farmland and its contribution to
food security needs; he was disappointed that this would be destroyed by concrete
and bricks. He asked the committee to reconsider and urged them to reject the
development.
Mr
Steve O’Connell spoke in objection to the proposal. He noted his previous
experience with planning committees and understood the planning balance.
However, like other objectors, did not feel as though there was an overriding
need for open market housing and had concerns regarding school land. Mr
O’Connell could not see any highways benefits as he felt as though it would
increase traffic and was concerned of the impacts on the AONB. The public
objector did not feel as though the neighbourhood plan had been considered and
urged the committee to reconsider their decision.
Local
MP, Simon Hoare addressed the committee, urging them to refuse the application.
He noted that this was the first time since 2015 that he had made a
representation at planning committee, therefore, hoped this represented his
strong objection. Mr Hoare felt as though the proposal was contrary to planning
policy and noted the impact on the AONB. Included in his representation were
concerns regarding the housing land supply and felt that the argument presented
had been misleading. He urged the committee to defer the proposal and seek
expert legal advice or refuse completely.
Ms
Carole Tompsett spoke in support on behalf of the Blandford neighbourhood plan
group. She highlighted the needed infrastructure within the area and the
suitability of the site location. Ms Tompsett’s representation stressed the
need for affordable housing and was pleased that the council had worked closely
with developers to create a high-quality development. She felt as though the
proposal would have expanded the town and local villages, attracting investment
opportunities. It was noted that the plans before members met and exceeded all
stipulations. Ms Tompsett hoped the committee would support the officer’s
recommendation.
The
agent made a representation in support of the proposal, noting that he had
listened carefully to the previous committee meeting. Mr Hoskinson discussed
the history of the site and how it had been shaped by both Blandford and Pimperne neighbourhood plans. He referred to the design and
access statement and felt as though the proposal was an exceptional
application. Mr Hoskinson assured members that careful consideration had been
given to the site and the applicant had worked hard with officers. Only three
policy changes had been made and he urged committee members to recognise the
good design with the provision of public open space as well as educational
benefits. Asked members to support as previously done. The agent hoped members
would support and allow the opportunity to deliver a high-quality application.
The
applicant spoke in support of the proposal and was pleased to address the
committee. Mr Wyatt was proud of previous completed developments which had
delivered high quality homes with good employment rates working with quality
developers. The applicant discussed ongoing nutrient neutrality problems from
within Dorset as well as highlighting the local need. He discussed the housing
crisis, including the current number of households on waiting lists. Mr Wyatt
felt as though the proposal was critical to the housing land supply and pledged
to create affordable, well designed, quality homes in sustainable settings. He
hoped the committee would support the officer’s recommendation.
Cllr Peter Slocombe addressed the committee
on behalf of Pimperne Parish Council. He was
disappointed with some of the illustrative drawings shown in the officer’s
presentation as he did not feel as though it represented the parish boundary.
Cllr Slocombe strongly objected to the addition of houses in Pimperne as they did not have a housing need in the area,
as well as this he did not feel as though the proposal complied with the Pimperne Neighbourhood Plan but conflicted it. Pimperne Parish Council did not feel as though the benefits
outweighed the harm and therefore, urged the committee to refuse.
Cllr Alan Cross spoke in support of the
proposal and highlighted that the Town Council welcomed the changes and was
strongly supported. He discussed the site location and felt that the proposal
would have delivered high quality homes which were urgently required. Cllr
Cross emphasised the provision for a new school and the future requirements of
this. In addition to this, his representation also discussed retail and
community facilities which would have benefited all residents. On behalf of
Blandford Town Council, Cllr Cross urged the committee to accept the updated
proposals.
The Local Ward member spoke in objection to the proposal
and felt as though the committee had two decisions, strongly object or defer to
allow for further consideration and improvements. Cllr Jespersen was concerned
about the harm that would be done if granted and discussed the importance of
complying with neighbourhood plans. The Local Ward member addressed the changes
and felt that they were significant. Cllr Jespersen was aware of the history of
the site, however, in the interest of fairness, believed that the committee
should have either refused or deferred the proposal until the next committee
meeting which was scheduled to take place in June 2024.
Members questions and comments
·
Clarification
between Housing Land Supply Test percentages.
·
Concerns
regarding the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act policy changes.
·
Impacts on the
AONB.
·
Confirmation
on what was considered as exceptional circumstances.
·
Letton Park
not situated within the AONB.
·
Questions
regarding the constraints of the area for development as well as points of
clarification as to whether it was the only suitable site for school provision.
·
Possibility of
GP site and location.
·
Affordable
housing list requirement for social housing.
·
Conflicting
views from both Pimperne and Blandford Neighbourhood
Plans. Members queried what weight could be given during the decision-making
process.
·
Cllr Pothecry
welcomed the reduction of the housing land supply and the titled balance. She
strongly supported neighbourhood plans and found the plan before committee
attractive. However, was unable to find exceptional circumstances. Therefore,
she proposed to defer. There was no seconder, therefore, the motion fell.
·
Well designed
development and a clear local need.
·
Members
supported their previous decision and did not feel as though any of the changes
impacted their decision.
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 SUPPORT as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Stella
Jones, and seconded by Cllr Jon Andrews.
Decision: To SUPPORT the officer’s
recommendation to consider that
the recent changes to the National Planning Policy Framework and to legislation
through the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act are such that they should not
result in a change to the overall planning balance previously made on this
application. Members recognised that the benefits of this scheme were ‘many and
weighty’ and would ‘boost the supply’ of housing, outweighing the identified
conflict with the development plan.
Supporting documents: