Agenda item

Outline planning application for proposed residential development together with open space and associated works (all matters reserved save for means of access).

The Lead Project Officer presented the outline application for residential development with associated open space and works. Members were advised that, since publication of the report, eight additional representations had been received. These had been reviewed and were not considered to alter the recommendation.

 

It was explained that the application had previously been refused under delegated powers in June 2024. An appeal had subsequently been lodged but was later withdrawn following the Council’s annual position statement demonstrating a housing land supply of more than five years.

 

The site context was described, with plans showing the location in relation to Wimborne and Colehill. The site was accessed from the southern side of Granville Avenue and was outlined on an aerial photograph. A site constraints analysis was shown, including contour lines illustrating that the land sloped generally from north to south. Photographs of the site and surrounding area were presented, including the existing access point and views showing the relationship to Old Manor Close.

 

An indicative masterplan was displayed, showing development concentrated on the western part of the site and public open space to the east. The masterplan illustrated up to 49 dwellings, areas of public open space including Local Area of Equipped Play (LEAP) and Local Area of Play (LAP) facilities, a Heathland Infrastructure Project (HIP) area, and access onto Birchdale Road. It was emphasised that the precise scale, layout and appearance would be determined at a later reserved matters stage.

 

Members were informed that 362 objections had been submitted in relation to the proposals, with a summary shown on screen and full comments available online. The eight additional objections had also been summarised. Objections had been received from Colehill and Wimborne Town Councils and Dorset Wildlife Trust, while other consultees had raised no objections subject to conditions.

 

In addressing the principle of development, the Lead Project Officer referred to Policy KS2 of the Local Plan, which identified Wimborne Minster as a main area for development and Colehill as a settlement where some growth was expected. As the Council was currently unable to demonstrate a five‑year housing land supply, the tilted balance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) applied.

 

The site lay within the green belt, with boundaries following the main urban area. It was explained that the proposal did not fall within the traditional green belt exceptions. However, under paragraph 155 of the NPPF, development should not be considered unacceptable where it utilised grey belt land, there was a demonstrable need for the development, it was in a sustainable location and complied with the “golden rules.” The definition of grey belt was outlined, including the requirement that the land should not strongly contribute to the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas, the merging of settlements, or the safeguarding of the countryside from encroachment. A detailed assessment had been undertaken, concluding that the site made a weak or no contribution to urban sprawl and limited contribution to separation. The proposal was therefore considered to meet the criteria in paragraph 155 and the golden rules, including the provision of 50% affordable housing, infrastructure contributions and accessible green space.

 

Flood risk and drainage were addressed, with plans confirming that the site lay outside Flood Zone 1. Infiltration drainage had been tested and found unsuitable, and the proposed strategy involved draining surface water to an attenuation basin with controlled discharge to a watercourse. A detention basin was proposed described to temporarily store water during heavy rainfall and slowly drain. Slopes would be graded at 1:4, with swales connecting to a watercourse draining towards the River Stour.

 

Highways and access matters were considered acceptable, a Transport Statement had been submitted and Dorset Council Highways raised no objection. Traffic generation was expected to be relatively low. Concerns raised regarding refuse vehicles were addressed, with refuse vehicles able to enter and exit the site in forward gear. The Waste Team had identified the potential need for a larger turning circle, which could be resolved at the reserved matters stage.

 

Impacts on heritage assets were considered. Two listed buildings were located in the vicinity, including the Grade II* listed Old Manor Farmhouse. It was advised that the scheme would result in less than substantial harm, which would be outweighed by public benefits such as the contribution to housing supply, the provision of 50% affordable housing, and public open space and play facilities.

 

Biodiversity and habitats were addressed in detail. While nearby SANGs at Leigh Common and Bytheway Field lacked sufficient capacity to serve the development, land on the eastern part of the site was proposed to be used for a HIP, which was considered acceptable. An on‑site biodiversity plan was shown, including a receptor site, reptile fencing, species‑rich grassland management, mixed sward acid grassland and retention of a badger sett. The Natural Environment Team raised no objection subject to conditions, and the applicant indicated an intention to purchase biodiversity credits where required.

 

In terms of character and appearance, advice from the urban and landscape design officer was that the site could accommodate appropriate development. Images of nearby developments were shown, and a density of approximately 27 dwellings per hectare was considered consistent with surrounding areas. Although detailed assessment was limited by the outline nature of the application, separation distances were shown and considered typical of nearby development. Trees on the site were identified on a plan, with all trees proposed to be retained except those necessary to facilitate the access. The Tree Officer had raised no objection.

 

Planning contributions were outlined, including financial contributions towards NHS provision, education and public transport to address pressure on local services. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was zero‑rated as the HIP would be provided.

 

Other matters included ground conditions, with intrusive investigations secured by condition and any necessary remediation also to be controlled by condition. An air quality assessment showed background particulate levels below relevant thresholds, with construction‑phase mitigation to be secured. Traffic noise was identified as the main potential environmental noise source, with details of mitigation to be conditioned. Further assessment of heat pump noise would be required if such systems were proposed.

 

In summary, the Lead Project Officer advised that all key planning issues had been considered to be acceptable subject to conditions. The planning balance gave substantial or significant weight to a number of benefits, with biodiversity impacts identified as a minor disbenefit.

 

Public representation was received in opposition to the application from Leslie Haskins, Michael Carter and Jill Whitfield. Concerns were raised including; the loss of biodiversity on site, particularly in regard to the loss of wild bluebells and other native plant species; worsened flooding in the area from increased development, particularly affecting Old Manor Farmhouse; and inappropriate use of Birchdale Road as the sole access to the development, due to its narrowness and residential setting.

 

Beverley Moss spoke as the agent for the application. She noted that the application would make a positive contribution to the housing supply in Dorset, as well as a 50% affordable housing contribution. In addition, the scheme would provide accessible greenspace to the public and make financial contributions to local infrastructure.

 

Cllr Carol Butter and Cllr Simon Wheeler spoke on behalf of Colehill Town Council and Wimborne Town Council respectively. They stated that they were objecting on behalf of their Town Councils and raised concerns including the merging of the two towns, the decline of the green corridor between Wimborne and Colehill, the unsafe access of Birchdale Road and the harm to green belt land.

 

The Ward Member for Colehill and Wimborne East, Cllr Andy Todd and the Ward Member for Wimborne Cllr Shane Bartlett, also spoke on the application. Cllr Todd objected to the application on the grounds that it did not meet the high policy tests to be treated as grey belt land and thought that the land remained important green belt land that separated Colehill and Wimborne. He also raised the issue of biodiversity loss and flooding experienced by residents of the area. Cllr Bartlett also objected to the application, noting that there was not sufficient infrastructure in Wimborne to support the new development, in particular current traffic levels were at capacity and could not support additional vehicle movements.

 

Officers responded to the points raised by the public speakers with the following replies:

·       The NPPF stated that refusal on the grounds of an emerging local plan would seldom be acceptable, therefore the emerging local plan was attributed limited weight.

·       The site didn’t meet the criteria of being a lowland meadow, so was not considered a priority habitat.

·       It was the responsibility of the developer to act lawfully in regard to wild Bluebells being located on the site.

·       Biodiversity net gain would be dealt with post grant of planning consent and in this case, it was being proposed that biodiversity net gain would be achieved through off site credits.

·       The application had been considered by the Environmental Delivery Mitigation Team and Natural England, who agreed that the impact on Dorset Heathlands could be mitigated.

·       It was not considered that the application would have a detrimental effect on the nearby village green.

·       The Transport Assessment had been reviewed by Highways and was considered acceptable. There was likely to be an increase in trips, however approximately 30 additional trips in the am and pm peaks was not considered an unacceptable impact.

·       The Lead Local Flood Authority had not objected to the application and the proposed detention basin was considered appropriate mitigation against flood risk. 

·       An assessment had been undertaken to determine the grey belt status of the land, which was informed by a previous assessment that concluded that the site contributes little to the separation of the two towns.

 

In response to questions from members officers provided the following replies:

·       As the site was subject to the golden rules, the applicant would not be able to undertake a viability assessment to reduce the affordable housing contribution.

·       The grey belt assessment was informed by the 2021 green belt Review that was prepared as part of the Dorset Local Plan and concluded that the application site made a weak contribution to the green belt and was given weak to no weight in preventing neighbouring towns from merging.

·       The 2021 Local Plan consultation, which recommended additional access into the site was considering a development larger than the one proposed, while the proposed single access has been considered acceptable by the Highways Authority.

·       The public benefits of the application were the 50% affordable housing contribution, the contribution to the supply of housing, the provision of accessible public greenspace and financial contributions to local infrastructure.

·       A condition was included in the recommendation requiring the submission of a protected species monitoring plan.

·       The site was considered a suitable location to walk and cycle to local amenities.

·       Three plots were allocated on the illustrative layout for self-build properties and any self-build proposals would require permission at the reserved matters stage.

·       A swept path analysis had not been undertaken, due to being an outline application with the final layout yet to be confirmed.

 

The committee agreed to extend the meeting beyond 3 hours.

 

Cllr Robinson left the meeting at 13:11.

 

Concerns were raised by members primarily about the classification of the site as grey belt land. Members noted that they had the opportunity to assess whether the site was grey belt and they did not agree with the officer assessment that the site made a weak contribution to the purposes of the Green Belt. They considered that the application site was important part of the separation of Wimborne and Colehill and that the application represented urban sprawl and would contribute to the merging of the two towns, so the site did not accord with the definition of grey belt.

 

The meeting was adjourned 13:16 – 13:30.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Flower and seconded by Cllr Brenton that the application be refused, as they considered the application to be inappropriate development in the green belt as it would erode the separate identity of the individual identities of Wimborne and Colehill and result in a reduction in the open area around the conurbation. Therefore, the public benefits of the application were considered sufficient to outweigh the inappropriate development in the green belt. 

 

Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.