Agenda item

Erect 4 No. open market dwellings and 3 No. affordable dwellings with associated parking and amenity areas, and the construction of a new vehicular access and road to replace the existing vehicular access.

The Case Officer provided members with an update in respect of 5-year housing land supply.

•         The annual position statement had fixed the land supply to 5.02 years.

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 proposed layout, elevations and floor plans were shown. Images of views along cycle paths were also included which identified that there was no street lighting. The presentation aided members in identifying the existing access as well as the location of the proposed dwellings. Details of the visibility splays and proposed building materials were also provided, highlighting a traditional design had been considered. A non-designated heritage asset had been identified in the Gillingham neighbourhood plan as well as nearby listed buildings. The Case Officer also discussed a number of mature trees and hedgerows on the site which acted as a screen to the proposed site from the surrounding area, noting that tree officers were concerned that there had been no details for mitigation for loss of trees. Members were also informed of the tree constraints plan in which there were a number of trees in the area of which the houses were proposed.

The planning considerations were set out, highlighting that the proposal was outside the development boundary contrary to the settlement boundary. It was not considered to be acceptable, and the proposal had not demonstrated that the development would have been acceptable in relation to trees. The benefit of proposal was the provision of 7 dwellings, 3 of which would have been first homes however this did not outweigh the unsustainable location, contrary to the spatial strategy. The Officer’s recommendation was to refuse for the following reasons:

• principle of the proposed development was unacceptable, as the site was located outside of any settlement boundary, therefore it was an unsustainable location.
• In the absence of a mitigation scheme for the loss of trees on the site, it had not been possible to properly assess the impact of the proposed development on the trees.

Public Participation

Mr Williams thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak. The agent referred to previous council in which the location was unsustainable, however, he felt the policy was out of date and the proposal was now situated in what he considered to be a sustainable location. Mr Williams discussed the direct pavement and cycle way links which would have ensured connectivity. There was also a tree mitigation proposal which would have limited loss. The agent was pleased that the town council and a lot of local residents supported the proposal, and they were happy to accept any conditions the committee felt necessary. Mr Williams hoped the committee would support the proposal.

Cllr Hurst spoke in support of the proposal. She felt that the argument that the site was in an unsustainable location was provers and it did not negatively impact the character and appearance of the area. In addition to this, Cllr Hurst felt that the proposed design and materials were sympathetic, and it was well screened, mitigating impacts on the surrounding area. There was a severe housing need and a shortage of building land. She felt that the locally rare brown field site was large enough for the proposed works and addressed comments raised in the officer’s presentation regarding trees on site. Cllr Hurst also highlighted the site access and the number of amenities which were in walking distance. She hoped members would support the application. 

The Local Ward member made a representation in support of the proposal. She highlighted the need to deliver housing and referred to section 5 of the NPPF which stated that the sufficient supply of homes should be delivered. The proposal would have provided 3 affordable homes which were well screened and within a lovely village with an excellent school, however, there were no homes for young families. Cllr Pothecary noted that the site was outside the settlement boundary and highlighted that local amenities were walking distance. The Local Ward member hoped the committee would support the proposal.

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding location of local amenities such as doctor surgeries in comparison to the proposed site.
• Sought confirmation on the definition of first homes
• Members noted that the inclusion of first homes would have been a benefit to the scheme as it catered to a specific market, and it would not have impacted residents on the housing register.
• Pleased that there were close local connections between the site and local amenities.
• Cllr Woode declared an interest to agenda item 8, in which he had made comments in consultation response, however he was setting out the Town Council’s view and was not pre-determined. Therefore, he would take part in the debate and vote.
• Further information regarding the grading of trees on site.
• Additional condition for a mitigation plan to protect trees on the site.
• Contrary to policy which the committee have fought to uphold. The Local Plan had set out clearly the policies and it had not been supported by the housing enabling team.
• Cllr Jespersen noted the benefits of the proposal, highlighting that it would have delivered 7 new homes, there was a regular bus service and cycle path, however, it was not considered to be within a sustainable location and was outside the settlement boundary. She emphasized the importance of following the policies set by Dorset Council and the proposal went against them.
• Cllr Rideout felt that the location was fairly sustainable and was pleased to see the inclusion of several first homes proposed. The proposal had been well designed and would have met the needs of local residents. However, if members were minded approving, they requested further detail on the provision of a tree mitigation plan.
• Clarification regarding the provision of sustainable materials such as charging points and solar panels.
• Cllr Fry informed the committee that he would have been voting against the proposal due to it going against policy, however, he did not dislike the application.

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 overturn the officer’s recommendation and GRANT planning permission, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Rideout, and seconded by Cllr Rory Major.

Decision: To overturn the officer’s recommendation and grant permission and delegate to the head of planning for the following reasons:

• The development would have provided 7 dwellings, including First Homes, there was a bus service and a cycle lane, the site was close to the school and doctors’ surgery. The dwellings were well designed.

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