Agenda item

Erect 11 no. affordable dwellings, modify vehicular access, form parking areas, gardens and open spaces for landscaping, storm water attenuation and biodiversity mitigation.

The Senior Planning Officer presented the application for the erection of 11 affordable dwellings, including modifications to the vehicular access, the formation of parking areas, gardens and landscaped open space. The application had come to committee for determination because part of the site was on Dorset Council owned land.

 

The site location within Sixpenny Handley was shown, together with photographs of the site, the existing access arrangements and views from the public highway. Photographs of the surrounding area were also presented, along with a plan showing the relationship of the site to nearby heritage assets. It was confirmed that there were no designated heritage assets on or immediately adjacent to the site.

 

Flood risk mapping was displayed, showing some areas of surface water flood risk across the site, and it was noted that the site lay within the National Landscape. The proposed site layout was shown, demonstrating that the scheme would utilise the existing access.  The scheme would deliver 11 affordable dwellings secured through a Section 106 agreement, meeting an identified local need, with one unit designed to be wheelchair accessible. The development was assessed against Policy LN4 as an exception site for affordable housing and Policy KS2, and it was noted that the site lay within a walkable distance of local services and amenities.

 

Members were advised that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five‑year housing land supply and that the tilted balance therefore applied. The proposed density of approximately 27 dwellings per hectare was described as comparable with other development within the village and the housing mix was considered to align well with local needs. Elevations of the proposed dwellings were shown and the proposed materials included, brick, flint, timber cladding and natural slate roofs, which were considered appropriate materials for the area. Proposed floor plans were also presented.

 

A soft landscaping plan was shown, indicating appropriately sized front and rear gardens, boundary planting and landscaping throughout the site. It was explained that the scheme included sufficient parking provision. In total, 59 parking spaces were proposed, including 24 spaces to serve existing neighbouring dwellings.

 

The landscape impact assessment was explained, including the zone of theoretical visibility, which indicated that visibility would be limited to close proximity and elevated viewpoints only. When real‑world obstructions were taken into account, visibility would be further reduced. Photographs were shown to demonstrate views from the wider area and it was concluded that the development would be perceived as part of the existing village rather than as an isolated or intrusive addition.

 

In relation to the Cranborne Chase National Landscape, it was noted that three rooflights were proposed and considered acceptable. Permitted development rights would be removed to prevent additional rooflights being added in the future, and the scheme was considered to integrate with the existing built form rather than introducing a new source of lighting.

 

The drainage strategy was outlined, showing that the site lay within Flood Zone 1 and that the dwellings had been positioned largely outside areas of identified surface water flood risk. Highway impacts were addressed, with crossing points proposed on either side of the site access. The layout was confirmed to allow for appropriate turning and manoeuvring by emergency vehicles and refuse vehicles.

 

Residential amenity impacts were considered acceptable, with the nearest neighbouring dwellings located approximately 18 metres away and further screened by planting. It was noted that the nearest SSSI was approximately 1 kilometre from the site, and no buildings or mature trees suitable for roosting bats were present. No ground‑nesting birds had been identified on site, there was no evidence of great crested newts and only a single lizard was recorded.

 

The Senior Planning Officer concluded that the site was well related to a sustainable settlement and within walking distance of amenities, that there would be no harm to neighbouring amenity and that the development would not significantly detract from the setting of the National Landscape.

 

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

·       The tilted balance had been engaged as Dorset Council were unable to demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply, therefore paragraph 11d of the NPPF applies stating that where there are no strong reasons to refuse the application the application should be granted unless there are significant demonstrable harms that outweigh the benefits.

·       The development includes sufficient parking to serve the new residents and the residents of the existing properties, opposite to the application site.

·       The dwellings would have allocated parking spaces, the organisation of which would fall to the applicant. There had been no objections on the basis of parking from the neighbours opposite or the school.

·       There was not a registered provider currently in place for the affordable housing.

·       It would not be possible to condition the use of automatic blinds as it would be difficult to enforce if occupiers of the homes did not use them.

·       Light tunnels would result in similar levels of light being emitted as the currently proposed rooflights.

·       There was a condition included in the recommendation that controlled exterior lighting.

·       The Lead Local Flood Authority had reviewed the application and were content that drainage basins were sufficient for mitigating flood risk.

·       The speed limit on the road accessing the site was 30mph.

 

Having had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, several members expressed support for the application, although raised concerns about light pollution from the proposed rooflights and external lighting. The Development Management Area Manager confirmed that the condition controlling exterior lighting could be made more robust and an additional condition controlling the materials of the glazing of the rooflights could also be added.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Fry and seconded by Cllr Ridout, that the application be granted, with an additional condition requiring details and technical specifications of the materials used for the rooflights to be submitted for approval and an alteration to the wording of condition 17 to require a lighting scheme to be submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority, in order to control exterior lighting and protect the dark skies reserve.

 

Decision:

 

That authority be delegated to the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Area Manager Northern Team to

 

A)   grant planning permission subject to conditions as set out in the appendix to these minutes and the completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation under Section106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (S106 agreement) to secure Affordable Housing and one wheelchair accessible/adaptable unit.

 

OR

 

B)   Refuse permission for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes if the agreement is not completed by 14th October 2026 or such extended time as agreed by the Corporate Director for Planning, the Service Manager for Development Management & Enforcement or the Development Management Northern Area Manager.