Agenda item

Demolition of barns & erection of up to 30no. dwellings & provision of site for village hall with parking area, wildlife area, attenuation pond & public open space (outline application to determine access only).

The Case Officer provided members with the following update:

• Section 18 recommendation – Change recommendation D) to:

- Unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Head of Planning, if the S106 legal agreement was not completed by 05/05/2025 then refuse planning permission for the following reasons: The proposed contributions and benefits of this scheme have not been secured by a S106 legal agreement as such the adverse impacts of the proposed development would not outweigh the harm on the setting of the heritage asset Sandways Farm, nor the harm to the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside in this particular location contrary to North Dorset LP Policies 2, 6 and 20, and paragraph 180, National Policy Framework.

 

• Section 14.0 – Contributions are also being collected towards:

-       Libraries: £75.00/dwelling

-       Bus service and sustainable transportation: £6072.00 to upgrade bus stop and maintenance

-       Rights of Way enhancements:

o   £3900 surface works to fp N57/16

o   £16,250 surface works to (N57/21) Clay Lane,

o   £52,00 to surface works to N70/16,

o   £379.50 for a pedestrian gate to Clay Lane

-       Note the mis-number of conditions 5 twice.

-       Note condition 11 drawing number has changed to 20083 -24.

 

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. The Case Officer included details of the indicative layout and explained that the proposal was an outline application for access only. Photographs of the field access, viewpoints looking towards the site and proposed site access were shown. Images of neighbouring properties, street scenes and site boundaries were also included. The Case Officer explained the planning history of the site and provided details of the biodiversity mitigation parameter plan. In addition to this, the Case Officer also noted the site constraints, including details that the proposal was outside the settlement boundary which had been acknowledged and there were two heritage assets of concern. There were also two other listed buildings to the southwest but due to slope of the land and intervening of development it was not considered to be a constraint.

 

Details of the location plan and site layout were included as well as an overview of the site history which had benefited from comments from urban design and conservation officers, who had formulated an indicative layout which officers supported. Members were informed that the proposed hall would have been situated more centrally within the site and it met policy. A viability assessment had been submitted and the Case Officer reminded members that they were only considering the principle of development and site access. No objections had been received from the Highways team and visibility splays were considered to be in excess of usual expectations. The access included in the officer presentation was in an indicative form which would link to existing footpath. The proposal was considered to be safe and met policy.

 

Therefore, the officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Head of Planning and the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement to:

 

A) Grant outline planning permission subject to the following conditions, and the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the legal services manager.

 

B) Refuse permission for the reasons set out below if the S106 legal agreement is not completed by 05/05/2025 or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

 

 

Public Participation

Mr Holmes spoke in objection to the proposal. He is a local resident who moved to the area for a rural lifestyle. He noted the current constrains on education and healthcare within the area, highlighting limited school spaces and the local doctor surgery being at capacity. Mr Holmes felt that the proposal failed to deliver meaningful infrastructure and would further contribute to environmental concerns. He also noted that while there was a site for a new village hall, it was disheartening that there was no commitment to fund or build it, leaving residents with the cost. Biodiversity was also a concern, highlighting that the development threatened critical habitats, contradicting the North Dorset Local Plan. The objector also discussed safety concerns, especially with an increase in traffic. Mr Holmes reiterated the number of objections and hoped members would put an end to over urbanisation of the village.

 

Mr Curry also spoke in objection to the proposal. He discussed the application which was previously presented for a development in Bourton for 30 houses, amenity space and a new village hall to be built at the entrance. The hall and car park were to be gifted to the community and was central to the Parish Council’s decision to work with the developer. Mr Curry highlighted the provision of affordable housing, which was barely 17%, not the 40% requirement. This was not acceptable. He also discussed the location of the proposed hall site; it would have been situated at the low point of the development in an unsuitable area. Mr Curry concluded his representation by stating that the plan was not suitable, receiving over 100 objections. If built, the development would have stood for generations as a brutal reminder that local democracy was ignored. He urged the committee to refuse the application.

 

Mr Williams thanked members for the opportunity to speak and introduced himself as the agent for the application. He commended the officer’s report which provided a very comprehensive and impartial assessment of the proposal in the context of relevant planning policies. He recalled that a previous application was refused by the Committee in March last year, as per the officer recommendation. Following the refusal, they had engaged extensively with officers and the scheme had been designed to secure the collective agreement of the Council’s conservation, urban design, highway, ecology and flood management officers. Mr. Williams highlighted his client’s commitment to delivering the layout presented. However, only access was to be approved at this outline stage so if members had any concerns regarding the indicative layout, informatives could have been placed on the outline permission to guide the detailed design.

 

The District Valuer had independently reviewed the scheme for the Council and confirmed the scheme was viable to enable the requirements of Neighbourhood Plan Policy 5. Mr. Williams referenced the number of objections which represented less than 10% of the village population. To conclude, the agent explained that the layout had been designed to satisfy officers following the previous refusal and therefore hoped members would grant outline planning permission in accordance with the recommendation. 

 

Cllr Peter Williams spoke against the proposal on behalf of Bourton Parish Council. He felt that the current application included the site for a new Village Hall in a far less acceptable location than previously proposed. He noted that the proposal was only for the plot for a new Hall, presenting the community with a challenge of funding its construction.  The preferred New Hall location is on the site of the existing barn, where it would have much greater accessibility, appeal and financial viability.  Having an adjacent carpark would make its designation much more viable than with the current application, in which there was a big gap between the main carpark and the Hall site, risking its utilisation by residents, thereby restricting access to the Hall for many individuals.  The Local Parish Councillor also felt that the proposed development would have been contrary to the Local Plan on a number of issues which included policies 2,6 and 20. Highlighting that there was no local need for an additional 30 dwellings. Cllr Williams also discussed the harm to the setting of the heritage asset and insisted that the application be refused.

 

 

Members questions and comments

• Clarification regarding flood mitigation and details of a drainage scheme.
• Questions to confirm what changes were made from the previously refused application to make it acceptable.
• Points of clarification regarding viability of the site.
• Cllr Jones requested further detail regarding leeway with S106 and whether financial contributions could have been put to another use.
• Members highlighted the concerns raised regarding the Neighbourhood Plan and sought clarification as to how a small housing development should be interpreted.
• Cllr Pothecary queried the distance between the site access point and the proposed location of the village hall as well as from the site access to the proposed car park. Concerns were raised regarding accessibility for residents.
• Members did not feel that the proposed parking or the indicative layout for the village hall was sufficient. Cllr Jespersen requested that if members were minded to approve, to add an informative note to this effect so that they matter could be addressed in any reserved matters application. Clarification regarding educational contributions and whether they would likely benefit a school in Bourton
• Viability had reduced the proportion of affordable housing
• Cllr Pothecary noted that years had been spent creating the Neighbourhood Plan and felt that the indicative proposal was of a poor design which included parking which was not accessible for all residents. She also did not feel as though there was a local need for 30 houses which was contrary to several polices and was disappointed that there had been no engagement with the local community. Cllr Pothecary recommended refusal on the basis of the Neighbourhood Plan and policies 2,5,6,20,23 of the Local Plan. Less than substantial harm to the setting of the adjacent listed building was not outweighed by public benefit of the proposed market housing provision, affordable housing, open space, and the provision of the land for the village hall.

 

 

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 REFUSE planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Val Pothecary, and seconded by Cllr David Taylor. 

 

Decision: To refuse planning permission on the following grounds;

 

1. The proposed development site was located in the countryside outside of the settlement boundary in the adopted Local Plan and would not have been addressing local housing need contrary to Policies 2 and 5 of the Bourton Neighbourhood Plan, Policies 2, 6, 8 and 20 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (2016), and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

2. The proposed development would likely have an adverse impact resulting in less than substantial harm to the setting of Sandways Farm which would not be outweighed by public benefits contrary Policy 5 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (2016), and the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

3. In the absence of completed and signed Section 106 legal agreement to secure affordable housing, allotments, NHS infrastructure, education, pre-school provision, community leisure and sport facilities, land for village hall, land for amenity space/open space, amenity space maintenance, formal outdoor sports facilities, libraries, bus service and sustainable transport, and rights of way the proposal would be contrary to Policies  4, 8, 13, 14 and 15 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (January 2016), and the National Planning Policy Framework.