Agenda item

P/FUL/2024/00246, Fordington Farm, Alington Avenue, Dorchester, Dorset

Erect 6 no. dwellings, form vehicular access (demolish existing outbuilding)

Minutes:

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. He included photographs of the application site, the site location plan and proposed access, proposed block plan of the site and Housing types were shown. There were no objections from the Highway Authority on highway grounds. The principle of residential development was considered acceptable and, in its design, scale and layout and landscaping. There would be no significant harm to residential amenity and no material considerations that would warrant refusal.

 

Public Participation

 

Mr Barker spoke in objection to the proposal and had collaborated with his neighbours. He raised access issues and risks and explained that the fundamental problem and main objection was regarding the risk to personal safety and property created by allowing access for building and use of proposed houses through the bottleneck between Nos 15 and 17 Armada Way. He explained that there were concerns related to building machinery and vehicles and the daily access by occupants, visitors, deliveries, mail, maintenance, and other services present which would increase the volume of traffic through a restricted access with poor visibility. The people living in 15 and 17 access would be located by the bottleneck between both houses which would be constricted further when they used their parking spaces. Drivers exiting through the new site access would be unable to see any vehicles, cyclists or pedestrians until they were clear of the walls on either side. Emergency vehicles would have to negotiate the additional parked and moving traffic in a limited space, and would be adding to the risk to people, property and vehicles. He also spoke about the implications on Armada Way, which already had a significant passage of people, regularly young children for school and sports. Congestion would worsen the risk to these people and with the added construction and crossing the pavement and many vehicles would need to reverse crossing the pavement and the increased temporary parking of visitors, delivery vehicles, site maintainers and others. He explained that there were no concessions, or risk controls to minimise or mitigate the considerable impact on the quality of life for the adjacent residents due to noise, dirt, dust, waste, general building detritus and access denials, especially at busy times of the day. Nor were there any apparent risk controls to minimise the likelihood of any damage to utilities, road surfaces and adjacent property in this confined area. The root cause of all of the above risks and concerns is access to the proposed development across the pavement and through the bottleneck via Armada Way. All of these risks and concerns could be alleviated by singular vehicular access from the North, with access via Armada Way provided to pedestrians/cycles only.

 

Ms Farmiloe spoke in objection to the impact of the proposed development on neighbouring properties. She raised concerns that the highway department had not done their job to the fullest extent and had concentrated on the collection of refuse off the development which would not happen and was not needed. She wished the highway department looked into more detail at the impact of exiting the new development instead of accessibility. She explained that widening of the gateway by 300 mm would not resolve the problem of visibility for any of the residents and would be extremely difficult for all concerned. The 6’ high wall which enclosed the development and existing parking area obstructs the view completely on both sides of the gateway.  There would be potentially 27 vehicles using the same pinch point and not one of them had a good view of approaching cars leaving the premises at the same time. She added that no one had reached out or spoken to the residents or their families who were directly involved with how the development would impact their ability to safely exit from their premises. There was a resident who relied on a mobility scooter, and often drove past the gate way every single day. As well as people who walked, cycle or put their bins out that need to navigate the pinch point area. Also, a new gateway was being built placed at the side of property and what is to stop the public using this as a shortcut ignoring the existing public pathway, this would potentially increase the footfall therefore potential accidents at the pinch point.

 

Mr Nock represented the applicant.  He explained that the subject of the application was to demolish the existing dairy farm building and erect 6 new dwellings. The application followed a detailed pre-application consultation for 7 new dwellings and the planning officer’s comments were taken on board, reducing the unit numbers and rearranging the site to provide additional landscaping. During the planning application he consulted with the case officer, making changes to the proposal to address consultee comments and concerns. He added that subsequently, the proposals had been recommended for approval and he understood the application was in due to an objection from the Town Council. He clarified that for overdevelopment, the case officer had confirmed that the layout of the development was acceptable and not overdeveloped. Mr Nock and the applicant agreed that the proposal was well designed with a far lower density than all surrounding developments, on Armada Way and Sandringham Crescent. The Neighbouring areas had approximately 52 dwellings per hectare, whereas the proposal had a density of around 30 dwellings per hectare. He also informed that for vehicle access Dorset Council Officers had no objections with the proposals and the case officer was satisfied that access for a further 5 dwellings did not constitute a significant level of additional vehicular use, considering the level of current use. The access served 11 parking areas as well as a legal right of way for vehicle access to the agricultural farmyard for tractors and lorries. For Bins there were only two additional dwellings that relied upon the roadside of Armada Way for bin collection and the Council’s waste policy manager had no concerns. Landscaping- the landscaping plan showed that the hedging along the border with the footpath would be reinforced and it was in the applicant’s interest to do so for privacy of the gardens to units 05 and 06. With the addition of six new heavy standard trees, the footpath would become higher quality, well maintained green corridor, more so than it was previously. The application also proposed the replacement of poor quality lleyandii hedging, around the farmhouse curtilage, with pleached limes and walling, lending a more verdant backdrop to the proposed development and local setting. He summarised that the proposal was safe, a well-designed scheme, one recommended for approval by the case officer following statutory consultations.

 

 

Members questions and comments

  • Questions regarding possible archaeology on the site and pertained future works as the development is on a prominent site of Dorchester. Members also asked if the footpath would be open and accessible at all times.
  • Queried about waste collections for dwellings 3, 5 and 6.
  • Clarification about the condition of lowering the wall and who owns the access to the site. 
  • It was queried if alternative accesses to the site had been considered as well as mitigation measures.
  • Issues with the access were raised particularly with larger vehicles accessing the site. Concerns about pavement across access and if it should be removed to show designated vehicle use so that pedestrians did not have right of way.
  • Queried where dwellings 21,17 and 11 would put their bins on bin day 

 

 

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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Major, and seconded by Cllr Rideout.

 

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to conditions set out in the officer’s report and the additional condition set out below:

 

1.The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

 

Reason: This condition is required to be imposed by Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans:

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

 

3. Prior to development above damp-proof course level, details and samples of all external facing materials for the wall(s) and roof(s) shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

 

Reason: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development.

 

4. Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the turning/manoeuvring and parking shown on Drawing Number 02 must have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas, must be permanently maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

 

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site and to ensure that highway safety is not adversely impacted upon.

 

 5. Prior to commencement of development hereby approved a Construction Traffic Management Plan and programme of works shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The Plan shall include construction vehicle details (number, size, type and frequency of movement), vehicular routes, delivery hours and contractors’ arrangements (compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing, drainage and wheel wash facilities). The development shall thereafter be carried out strictly in accordance with the approved Construction Traffic Management Plan.

 

Reason: In the interests of road safety.

 

6. The detailed biodiversity mitigation, compensation and enhancement/net gain strategy set out within the approved Biodiversity Plan certified by the Dorset Council Natural Environment Team on 16th January 2024 must be strictly adhered to during the carrying out of the development. The development hereby approved must not be first brought into use unless and until: i) the mitigation, compensation and enhancement/net gain measures detailed in the approved biodiversity plan have been completed in full, unless any modifications to the approved Biodiversity Plan as a result of the requirements of a European Protected Species Licence have first been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority, and ii) evidence of compliance in accordance with section J of the approved Biodiversity Plan has been supplied to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter the approved mitigation, compensation and enhancement/net gain measures must be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.

 

Reason: To mitigate, compensate and enhance/provide net gain for impacts on biodiversity.

 

 7. In the event that contamination is found at any time when carrying out the approved development, it must be reported in writing immediately to the Local Planning Authority and an investigation and risk assessment must be undertaken in accordance with requirements of BS10175 (as amended). Should any contamination be found requiring remediation, a remediation Page 33 scheme, including a time scale, shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. On completion of the approved remediation scheme a verification report shall be prepared and submitted within two weeks of completion and submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure risks from contamination are minimised.

 

8. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 as amended (or any order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no additional windows or other openings permitted by Class A of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the 2015 Order shall be constructed at first floor level in any elevation of the dwellings hereby approved.

 

Reason: To protect amenity and the character of the area.

 

9. The hard and soft landscaping works detailed on approved drawing numbers 07 Rev A - Landscape Plan and 08 Rev A - Boundary Treatment Plan must be carried out in full during the first planting season (November to March) following commencement of the development or within a timescale to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority. The soft landscaping shall be maintained in accordance with the agreed details and any trees or plants which, within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development, die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation.

 

Reason: To ensure the satisfactory landscaping of the site and enhance the biodiversity, visual amenity and character of the area.

 

10. Before any equipment, materials or machinery are brought onto the site for the purposes of development, a pre-commencement site meeting between the Tree Officer, Arboricultural Consultant and Site Manager shall take place to confirm the protection of trees on and adjacent to the site in accordance with the Arboricultural Impact Appraisal and Method Statement prepared by NB Tree management, ref: Arboricultural Method Statement Fordington Farm – dated 22.9.23. The tree protection shall be positioned as shown on the Tree Protection Plan, ref: TPP1 dated Nov 2020 TC1 dated 22.09.2023. All tree protection shall be retained until the development is completed and nothing shall be placed within the fencing, nor shall any ground levels be altered or excavations made without the written consent of the Local Planning Authority. This condition shall not be discharged until an arboricultural supervision statement, the contents of which are to be discussed and agreed at the pre-commencement meeting, is submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

 

Reason: To ensure the avoidance of damage to existing trees and natural features during the construction phase.

 

11.Prior to commencement of works samples of the cellular confinement system to used, including the samples of the cell infill aggregate, which shall not be of a calcareous nature rather a 4-20mm clean angular granite of flint shall be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To safeguard trees and natural features which are important to the visual amenities of the area.

 

12.No works shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme of archaeological work in accordance with a written scheme of investigation which has been submitted by the applicant to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. This scheme shall cover archaeological fieldwork together with post-excavation work and publication of the results.

 

Reason: To safeguard and/or record the archaeological interest on and around the site.

 

13.The development shall be implemented in full accordance with the drainage mitigation and maintenance details outlined in the Surface Water Drainage Strategy and Flood Risk Assessment Prepared for J & F Properties (Southern Ltd.) by Godsall Arnold dated September 2023 revised: August 2024.

Reason: To avoid drainage problems as a result of the development with consequent pollution or flood risk.

 

14. No development shall commence until the necessary nutrient mitigation credits to mitigate the impacts of the development on the Poole Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar have been secured from an accredited nutrient provider and a copy of the Nutrient Credit Certificate demonstrating that purchase, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason: To ensure that sufficient mitigation is provided against any impact which may arise from the development on the Poole Harbour SPA and Ramsar.

 

15.Details of measures to limit the water use of the dwellings in accordance with the optional requirement in regulation 36(2)(b) and the Approved Document for Part G2 of the Building Regulations 2010 (or any equivalent regulation revoking and/or re-enacting that Statutory Instrument) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the dwellings are occupied. The submitted details shall include a water consumption calculation to demonstrate for each dwelling in accordance with the Approved Documents referred to above. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to occupation and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter. The measures will need to demonstrate that the development will secure a higher level of water efficiency than a figure of 110L/person/day and shall be implemented prior to occupation and maintained in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure nutrient neutrality in the Poole Harbour catchment in the interests of protected habitats.

 

16.  Before the development hereby approved is first occupied, the applicant shall have first submitted to and had approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, details of a scheme to lower and shorten the lengths of walling either side of the egress from the site onto the shared access to Armada Way.  Thereafter the development shall be implemented in accordance with the agreed scheme and shall be retained, maintained and kept free from all obstruction in accordance with the agreed details.

              

Reason: In the interest of highway safety.

 

Supporting documents: