Agenda item

Erect 17 No. dwellings, create an access and associated parking and landscaping.

The Development Management Team Leader explained that the application had been brought back to committee for determination following updated advice from Natural England regarding nutrient neutrality in Poole Harbour. It was also noted that the applicant had undergone a viability assessment, following increased costs, which showed that the scheme was no longer able to support any affordable housing.

The location of the site was shown and it was explained that it was considered a sustainable location for new dwellings. The development benefited from local facilities, and the Neighbourhood Plan had allocated the land for residential development for approximately 12 dwellings on the site. Officers did not consider that the proposal conflicted with the Neighbourhood Plan and noted that the application was being considered in light of the tilted balance, given the housing land supply position.

A location plan was shown, confirming that there was no proposed housing outside the settlement boundary and the development avoided the Dorset Heathland 400m Zone. A Heathland Infrastructure Project (HIP) was to be secured through a legal agreement, as although there was no policy requirement for open space, due to the proximity to local heathland and the lack of a local SANG, there was an identified need for the HIP until such time that alternative effective mitigation measures were demonstrated.

Photographs of the site were displayed, including an aerial image showing hedging along the boundary and trees on the southern boundary, which were protected.

The proposed site plan showed the existing road extending into the site, with three properties provided on the northern part and a further fourteen dwellings on the southern part of the site. The dwellings were mainly 2 storeys, comprising a mixture of semi-detached and detached properties.

Officers accepted that economic changes over time were a reasonable reason for a viability assessment, noting the cost of nutrient mitigation and the increase in bank interest rates. The Council’s consultant Dixon Searle agreed that the scheme was not viable for the purposes of affordable housing delivery.

Street views of the existing housing development were shown and officers considered that the proposal represented a low-density development compared to other sites in the Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan. It was considered that the proposed house types were similar to existing dwellings in the area.

In terms of neighbouring amenity, officers considered that the low density of the proposed and existing site should mitigate against any impact on neighbours, with there being generous distances between properties. Highways had reviewed the proposal and did not consider that further measures were necessary, given the modest additional traffic movements and confirmed that the existing junction layout was appropriate

An updated ecology report was provided and it was agreed that a dormouse bridge would be secured by condition. A summary of the proposed conditions was shown.

Mr Bennett spoke as the agent for the application, he highlighted that the proposal would be in keeping with the existing housing in the area, due to its low-density nature and it would provide a range of housing to suit the needs of the village. He noted that it was recognised that the development could no longer support affordable housing contribution due to rising costs, however emphasised that it would still provide an important contribution to the housing supply of the area.

The following answers were provided in response to members questions:

·       As the HIP would be a material change of the use of the land, a legal agreement would require the HIP and its ongoing maintenance. As it was not known when a SANG would be provided it would be recommended that the HIP was secured for a period of 80 years.

·       The viability assessment was done through a criteria set by the government and so was considered policy compliant from a planning perspective.

·       The dormouse bridge was proposed to be situated on land owned by the developer and wouldn’t impact the use of the land as a HIP and maintenance of the bridge would be required in perpetuity.

·       The HIP was required to be completed before any occupation of the dwellings.

·       None of the units were identified as being accessible, however building regulations required general accessibility of new dwellings.

·       There had been a recent appeal in the Purbeck area where the Inspector judged that a s106 viability review requirement was not justified as there was no specific policy outlining the parameters of when a viability review was appropriate. Therefore, it was recommended that a viability review could not reasonably be required.

·       Only the larger properties on the development had outbuildings.

·       The build costs used in the viability assessment were based on BCIS figures and were standardised costs used in the viability report.

·       The cost of land in the viability report is based on the benchmark land value so officers couldn’t comment on whether the land value had changed.

·       Officers could not say whether a different mix of housing type and density would have resulted in a scheme which could deliver affordable housing and had to consider the application as presented.

Members expressed concerns about the lack of affordable housing provided through the scheme and the timeline for the provision of the HIP in comparison to the development, however did not conclude that these were sufficient reasons for refusal. 

It was proposed by Cllr Sowry-House and seconded by Cllr Coombs that the application be granted, subject to a S106 legal agreement that secured the provision of the HIP prior to any commencement works for the construction of the dwellings.

Decision: That the application be granted subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes and the completion of a satisfactory planning obligation.