Agenda item

Erection of 15 dwellings together with the provision of a central green, sports space, community land, associated parking and infrastructure.

With the aid of a visual presentation, the Case Officer identified the site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies, advising that an updated information pack had been published and circulated. The site lay adjacent to the settlement boundary, partly within the Langton Matravers Conservation Area, with nearby Grade II listed buildings and public rights of way crossing and adjoining the land. Formerly used as school playing fields, the site was bordered by housing to the south and east and farmland to the west and north. Views from the High Street, existing access arrangements and surrounding facilities were shown, and it was noted that mature trees would be retained where possible to preserve the rural character.

The proposal comprised residential development including 40% affordable housing, delivering a balanced mix, together with a central green, new access arrangements and a comprehensive landscape strategy. Officers advised that there would be no harm to the Conservation Area or listed buildings, with appropriate separation distances and additional landscaping providing screening. All dwellings would have private gardens, good light and safe pedestrian access. Twenty-five third-party representations had been received. Highways, refuse and servicing arrangements were considered acceptable, and public rights of way would be safeguarded. The scheme provided biodiversity enhancements and an acceptable drainage strategy within Flood Zone 1. Although the former sports field would be lost, it had not been used since the school’s closure, and a new sports court and long-term community provision were proposed. Officers concluded that any limited harm was outweighed by the wider community benefits.

The Officer recommendation was to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East to either:

A)   GRANT planning permission subject to conditions as set out at the end of this report and the completion of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 agreement) to secure: - 40% affordable housing - Education contribution - Special education needs contribution - GP surgery contribution - Public right of way contribution

Or

B)   Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below if the S106 agreement is not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East..

Public Participation

Mr Leigh Merrick spoke in objection, describing the proposal as the third phase of development by the applicant and noting that the second phase, which began in spring 2023, was only now nearing completion almost four years later. He raised ongoing concerns regarding flooding and drainage and referred to the conservation area and national landscape designation, stating that the site was closely linked with established rights of way and that the development would be harmful. He also highlighted the village’s low provision of shops, services and employment, the presence of vacant units, and highway safety concerns relating to a dangerous junction and narrow High Street, concluding that the proposal required re-examination.

Mr Peter Golob addressed the Committee in objection and confirmed that written notes had been provided. He acknowledged that the proposal presented a number of benefits but referred to policies within the Purbeck Local Plan and noted that the site lay outside the settlement boundary. He stated that the Parish Council and local residents considered there to be a significant risk that the southern concentration strategy would be undermined. Mr Golob emphasised the critical nature of these concerns and urged the Committee to require robust Section 106 obligations as a key outcome of any decision.

Mr Clare Bolton, speaking as Agent, addressed the Committee and stated that the members had[LA1]  received a short briefing pack. She advised that the proposal included six affordable homes and was supported by relevant planning policies in an area identified as having housing need. She confirmed that the scheme had been assessed in detail and was supported, preserving key views while providing a new community sports facility and nursery provision. In response to concerns regarding traffic, she noted that mitigation measures had been incorporated. Ms Bolton stated that the benefits of the proposal outweighed any identified harm, that the development would integrate into the landscape, and that it was the product of extensive discussions. She commended the officer’s report and recommendation to the Committee.

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

Mr John Sinclair, on behalf of Langton Matravers Parish Council, thanked the Committee and raised concerns regarding traffic management, stating that increased traffic volume and speed would heighten the risk of road traffic accidents and that further calming measures were required. He referred to site safety issues during the second phase, advising that agreed traffic management arrangements had not been adhered to. He also noted that residents had been unable to access existing sports facilities, which had remained locked, and requested further detail on future provision. Finally, he expressed concern about the high number of second homes within the development and sought assurance that the proposed dwellings would be occupied by permanent residents.

Councillor Ben Wilson, Local Ward Member, confirmed he did not oppose the application but sought clarity on total vehicular movements and timing of traffic assessments. He emphasised public and highway safety, noting congestion near the school and a blind junction, and suggested a Traffic Regulation Order may be needed. He acknowledged residents had endured four years of development and welcomed that the scheme focused on primary homes, demonstrating the Local Plan was working.

Members questions and comments

• Expressed disappointment that most affordable homes were flats rather than houses, and suggested reconsidering house types to ensure equality with other homes.
• Noted the difficulty of widening the junction for better access.
• Commented positively on the use of green space and the attractive setting of the site.
• Observed that some buildings and garages used cladding, which was considered too dark, and suggested efforts to fit with the character of the area.
• Welcomed the inclusion of three-bedroom affordable housing and a total of six affordable homes.
• Liked the overall design and layout of dwellings and the mix of tenure in the community.
• Queried whether a viability test had been carried out and whether the scheme remained financially viable, noting reassurance regarding social housing provision being discounted at land value.
• Requested confirmation that roads would meet Dorset Council adoption standards.
• Queried whether resting areas would include benches.
• Asked if the Parish Council could request an alteration to the settlement boundary.
• Suggested it would have been beneficial to include bungalows.
• Raised questions about wheelchair accessibility, including door widths.
• Asked how sports facilities would be managed and about overall site accessibility.
• Raised concerns regarding the impact of lighting and potential conditions to restrict external lights on housing.
• Queried whether chimneys were functional or purely a design feature.
• Requested clarification whether roads on site met Dorset Council adoptable standards
• Emphasised that perspective purchasers should be made aware of relevant details through informative notes.

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 to delegate authority to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East to either:

C)   GRANT planning permission subject to conditions as set out at the end of this report and the completion of a Planning Obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 agreement) to secure: - 40% affordable housing - Education contribution - Special education needs contribution - GP surgery contribution - Public right of way contribution

Or

Refuse planning permission for the reasons set out below if the S106 agreement is not completed by 18 August 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager East was proposed by Cllr Toni Coombs, and seconded by Cllr Beryl Ezzard, subject to the conditions set out in the officer report and the informative note regarding site management.

Decision: Grant subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement, as set out in Section 19 of the officer’s report