Agenda item

Erect 25 dwellings (C3 use class), new vehicular and pedestrian access onto Wimborne Road and other associated works including landscaping and open space.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application for the erection of 25 dwellings with new vehicular and pedestrian access and associated works. An update was provided at the outset, clarifying that the CIL receipt was £497,000 and that public open space would be secured through a Section 106 agreement rather than by planning condition. It was also noted that the smaller apartment block proposed included one one‑bedroom flat and one two‑bedroom flat.

 

The site location within Lytchett Matravers was shown, including an aerial photograph illustrating the full extent of the application site. The land lay south of Wimborne Road and was situated between both older and more recent developments. Site constraints were identified, including falling land levels. Photographs from various viewpoints were presented, including a view from the southwestern corner of the site and a street‑view image from Wimborne Road.

 

It was explained that the site was allocated under Policy H6, which covered three separate sites, one of which (the Wareham Road site) had already been granted planning permission. A timeline of the application was provided.

 

The proposed masterplan was shown, including the design concept with an arrival area incorporating public open space and drainage at the eastern end of the site. Land‑use areas were defined for residential development and public open space. The proposal comprised 25 dwellings with a housing mix ranging from a one‑bedroom flat to four‑bedroom houses, and 0.5 hectares of open space. Examples of the house designs were displayed, along with an indicative rendering of the overall development. Members were informed that 75 objections had been received and that both the Parish Council and the Housing Officer had raised objections.

 

On the principle of development, the Lead Project Officer explained that the proposal was acceptable because it was located on an allocated housing site and Policy H6 indicated that approximately 25 homes were appropriate. Policy V2 concerns were addressed, with it being explained that although the site had previously lain within the Green Belt, the Local Plan adoption had amended the boundaries. A small part of the site, containing only the SUDS attenuation basin, remained within the Green Belt, but this was not considered inappropriate development. The proposed housing mix varied from Local Plan recommendations but was considered acceptable.

 

It was explained that the policy‑compliant requirement was for 10 affordable homes on site. The applicant had submitted a viability assessment, citing increased CIL costs and the costs of achieving nutrient neutrality in Poole Harbour. The District Valuer had reviewed the assessment and advised that the scheme was not viable if required to provide a fully compliant level of contributions. As a result, the scheme could not support any Section 106 contributions.

 

On highways matters, the proposed vehicular access would be provided via a new priority junction, with a secondary pedestrian access also proposed. The applicant had revised the junction design, narrowing the corner to help reduce vehicle speeds. Dorset Council Highways raised no objections. Parking provision included 57 allocated spaces, 18 garage spaces, and five on‑street visitor spaces, with capacity for additional informal on‑street parking if required. The overall parking level was considered acceptable.

 

The site layout included public open space at the entrance, with dwellings arranged to front the access road and set back with landscaped gardens. The scale and layout were considered acceptable, and the variety of house types created visual interest. The design incorporated predominantly pitched and gable roofs and a varied material palette including brick, painted brick, slate roofs and some cladding. Although the Parish Council had expressed concern over the use of brick and flint, officers considered these materials appropriate given their presence elsewhere in the village.

A large number of trees existed around the site boundary. Three areas were subject to TPOs and the Tree Officer confirmed that the trees could be protected subject to conditions. Permitted development rights were proposed to be removed for some dwellings to protect trees in the long term.

 

Regarding residential amenity, officers concluded that the development would not cause sufficient harm to justify refusal. The closest relationship was a 12‑metre distance to an adjacent block of flats which had no windows on the facing elevation, preventing overlooking. A condition restricting construction working hours was considered included in the recommendation.

 

The drainage strategy proposed discharge to a watercourse via an attenuation basin. As the site lay in flood zone 1, drainage was considered acceptable and had been reviewed by the Lead Local Flood Authority. The Officer confirmed that biodiversity net gain was not required, but the scheme included several ecological enhancements and was acceptable subject to conditions. The site lay within 5 km of the Dorset Heathlands, but mitigation measures and the presence of a SANG to the north were sufficient to address potential impacts. Nutrient neutrality could be achieved through the purchase of credits.

 

Public representation was received from Clare Spiller, the agent for the application. It was explained that the applicant had worked with officers to provide an acceptable scheme, that would provide a variety of house types with safe vehicle and pedestrian access.

 

In response to questions from members, officers provided the following responses:

·       There was no proposed connection from the proposed footpath to the existing rights of way and there was no policy requirement for a connection.

·       Footpaths would connect into the site and tactile paving was proposed on either side of the road.

·       The impact of the proposal on Myrtle Cottage had been considered in the report and it was not deemed to be sufficiently harmful to warrant refusal.

·       The SANG was located approximately 420m away, which equated to a 4-minute walk.

·       The Purbeck Local Plan was part of the development plan and was given weight in the consideration of the application.

·       The exact figure that the applicant paid for the land was no known, the District Valuer had taken the lowest reasonable value that a landowner would accept for the land, in addition to other factors such as the topography of the site to estimate the value of the land.

·       The land that the adjacent footpath was situated on was in different ownership to the application site.

·       The Parish Council maintained their concerns to the amended proposal.

·       The ridge height of the proposed block of flats was 8.7m and the eave height was 5.2m. An assessment on the impact of overshadowing on Myrtle Cottage was carried out and it was determined that it would not be harmful.

·       An uncontrolled crossing was considered appropriate for the level of footfall generated from the proposed development.

·       It was not possible to condition an additional footpath as it would be on land outside of the applicants ownership.

·       It was not possible to condition a viability review, as there was no policy in the Local Plan that supported a viability review.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Coombs and seconded by Cllr Sowry-House, that the application be granted, with an additional informative note encouraging the linking of the new footpath to the existing footpath in the future if possible.

 

Decision:

 

That authority be delegated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement and Development Management Area Manager East to

 

A)    grant, subject to 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 to secure:

• a Scheme for the provision and promotion of Suitable Alternative Natural Green space (SANG)

• provision of public open space

 

And the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.

 

Or

 

B)    refused for the reason set out in the appendix to these minutes if the agreement is not completed by 11 September 2026, or such extended time as agreed by the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement or Development Management Area Manager East.