Agenda item

Erect 130 No. dwellings, form public open space, landscaping and sustainable drainage system (SuDS). (Reserved matters application to determine appearance, landscaping, layout and scale; following the grant of Outline Planning Permission No. APP/D1265/W/21/3284485 (LPA Ref.2/2019/1799/OUT).

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. There would be 52 affordable units, of which 40% policy compliant, 36 affordable rents, in which would be spread out throughout most of the parcels. Layout and design considered acceptable, landscaping, acceptable, layout and design acceptable.

Public Participation

Ms Black an Associate Planner at SLR Consulting supporting the applicant addressed the Committee. The application was a Reserved Matters submission, meaning the principle of the development and the access had already been established and so this submission was only seeking the approval of the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. The development comprises 130 new homes, open space and landscaping.

She was pleased that the proposed development had been recommended for approval by your Officers, alongside the Consultees, to prepare this detailed Reserved Matters scheme that, which if approved, would enable the delivery of well-designed and much needed new housing.

A variety of building materials had been carefully chosen to reflect the character of the local area, including the use of slate grey and cottage red roof tiles, brick and render on the elevations as well as brick quoins and diamond detailing.

A variety of tree, shrub and hedgerow planting was proposed throughout the site, including along the streets to soften and create an attractive new development. Additional trees were added in response to Consultee comments and root cells have been incorporated to ensure trees can grow successfully within hard landscaped areas for the long-term.

She covered the benefits that the development would have for the local area, including:

• Much needed housing, including a mix of 2, 3 and 4-bed homes;
• 52 affordable homes, which equates to 40% of the overall development and is therefore policy compliant;
• Provision of a link to the existing trailway footpath to the west of the site, to enable a more direct pedestrian route to the town centre;
• Public open space and landscaping throughout the site and an equipped play area;
• Economic benefits both through employment during the construction phase and long-term local spending by future residents supporting shops and services; and CIL and S106 contributions, including financial contributions towards: community, leisure and indoor sports facilities, education, local healthcare, libraries and biodiversity and local nature reserve mitigation and maintenance.

Cllr Wardell addressed the Committee on behalf of the Stalbridge Town Council. He acknowledged that the Council’s initial concerns had been accommodated but there were three principal concerns relating to the reserve matters. Firstly, under the issue of principal development having been established up to 130 dwellings and questioned why there was an automatic assumption that the maximum number could be accommodated within the site without any consideration to have fewer dwellings. 130 dwellings give the figure of 23 dwellings a hectare more dense than necessary in this location in Stalbridge and more than that of the ongoing David Wilson development in Lower Road which is 20.5 dph. Opening up the development by reducing the number of dwellings would allow for more greenspace and additional trees. A great representation of the rural environment of which Stalbridge is part. So Stalbridge would like to see a reduction of the number of dwellings built on the development reducing the dph to a more rural level. Secondly, Stalbridge Town Council has expressed a desire to include an element of retirement accommodation on the estate. The footprint of which would not be too dissimilar to the existing plans, Hampshire homes have suggested it is not part of their business model and has dismissed this fundamental requirement for the Town. He requested that the Town Council would like to see a number of retirement properties with communal gardens within the proposed development. The design of the internal boundary areas to the development, should be revised to avoid the apparent segregation of future residents from the rest of the Town by providing a parameter path and linking it to that already planned access to the trial way. Other well-defined developments in the town have well defined perimeter or through pass allowing permeability both within the estates and for the existing areas. These paths provide interconnecting, unrestricted and accessible routes to other amenities as well as being used for outdoor recreation for all residents of the Town. Improving both mental and physical health and providing the interaction necessary for a welcoming Town. Connectivity and social inclusion with the rest of the Town is extremely important for all of the residents. He informed that development for an isolated out of town settlement should not be encouraged and was concerned why the existing 30 MPH speed limit had not been extended further alongside station road.

Members questions and comments

• Cllr Jespersen commented that it was disappointing that permission for up to 130 dwellings had been granted and it was difficult to see how 130 dwellings could fit on this site and have an acceptable layout. The Committee needed to get 130 houses to fit the best way possible. She proposed that the application be refused on the scale as it was a rural location, and the scale of 2 and a half storey buildings was unjustified and overdevelopment of the site, layout is crammed, very urban layout. She added that there was insufficient surveillance of the LEAP and this would lead to trees to be cut down, landscaping trees on the outside too few.
• Cllr Rideout commented that she was concerned about the LEAP positioning and surveillance. She commended the 33 swift and house martin boxes.
• Cllr Taylor seconded refusal due to overdevelopment

There was an adjournement from 14:42 - 15:05.

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 REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission, was proposed by Cllr Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Taylor.

Decision: To refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The development through incorporating two and a half storey dwellings would fail to relate to the surrounding development and result in a scale of development that would lead to an overtly urban appearance and cramped form of development which would fail to improve the character and quality of the area within which it is located contrary to policy 24 of the Local Plan and NPPF.

2. The layout would result in a cramped and urban form of development and the LEAP would fail to have adequate levels of surveillance or be well located to the surrounding buildings which is contrary to Policy 24 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.

3. The proposed layout fails to provide sufficient street trees so would fail to integrate the development into its surroundings contrary to Policy 24 of the Local Plan and the NPPF.