Agenda item

Erection of up to 50 no. dwellings, including provision of public open space, drainage & ancillary works (outline application to determine access only).

The Lead Project Officer presented the application using plans, aerial photographs and site images, and outlined the proposal and relevant planning policies. Members were advised that the Council's October 2025 five-year housing land supply statement identified a significant shortfall, confirming the Council can only demonstrate a deliverable housing supply that is equivalent to 2.53 years supply.

 

The site was located approximately 1 km from the town centre in a sustainable location with good access to services and facilities. Landscape visualisations demonstrated that proposed planting and landscaping would soften views of the development over time, resulting in limited visual impact, including from the Trailway. Overall effects of the development on receptors would be minor or moderate adverse rather than major adverse (significant). The development would not adversely affect the Dorset National Landscape.

 

Members were informed that flood risk was low and that the proposed drainage strategy included attenuation basins and permeable paving which had been accepted by the Lead Local Flood Authority. Foul drainage would connect to the existing sewer on Manston Road via a pumping station on site. There would be no harm to heritage assets. The scheme would provide two access points with pedestrian crossing facilities and was not considered to raise highway safety concerns. Although some habitat and hedgerow loss would occur, the proposal would deliver biodiversity enhancements and net gain. The root protection area of protected Black Poplar trees could be affected but conditions could be imposed to determine the presence or absence of any tree roots.​The site was not classified as best and most versatile agricultural land.

 

Members were advised that, in terms of the planning balance, weighing against the proposal was the conflict with the spatial strategy, however only limited weight could be given to this given the Council’s housing land supply position. Weighing significantly in favour would be the provision of 50 dwellings, including affordable housing, as well as public open space and infrastructure contributions secured by legal agreement. Economic benefits would also arise through construction activity and local spending.

 

The Lead Project Officer concluded that there were no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposed development.

 

Public Participation

 

Public – Objection

Richard Nye

He explained to the Committee that he had lived on Manston Road for approximately 25 years and raised concerns regarding the cumulative impact of the proposed development on highway safety and the operation of Manston Road. Particular concern was expressed regarding the proposed principal access serving 50 dwellings. He highlighted that existing residential driveways were located opposite the proposed junction, together with a footpath providing access to the recreation ground.

 

Concerns were raised that vehicle movements associated with the development, existing residential traffic, pedestrians and crossing points would all be concentrated within a limited section of road and that residents were unclear whether the combined impact of these movements had been fully assessed.

 

He also raised concerns regarding the proposed secondary access and pedestrian crossing opposite an entrance to the Rixon Recreation Ground. Reference was made to highway safety measures previously introduced at this location following a fatal accident in 1982, including pedestrian railings, and it was suggested that the area had long been recognised as a sensitive location for pedestrian safety.

 

Further concerns were expressed regarding visibility and vehicle speeds on Manston Road, particularly for traffic approaching from Shaftesbury and cresting the nearby hill. He questioned whether sufficient assessment had been undertaken of the interaction between the proposed access arrangements, pedestrian crossing points and existing turning movements. It was noted that the applicant's traffic survey had recorded vehicle speeds above the posted 30mph limit, with typical speeds of 36-37mph and some vehicles travelling in excess of 50mph.

 

He also referred to an increase in the use of the road by agricultural vehicles, lorries and HGVs and expressed concern that no detailed assessment of vehicle types using the route had been undertaken.

 

In conclusion, he urged Members to consider whether the highway impacts had been adequately assessed in the context of how the road operates on a day-to-day basis and whether the proposed development was appropriate in this location.

 

Laura Hitchcock (Speaking on behalf of Manston Road Resident’s Association)

She advised that residents recognised the need for additional housing within Dorset but questioned whether the application site represented an appropriate location for development and whether sufficient evidence existed to justify a different outcome from the Planning Inspector's decision issued approximately 18 months earlier.

 

Reference was made to the officer's report, which identified conflict with the development plan, landscape harm, the presence of two nationally significant native Black Poplar trees, and drainage and groundwater constraints. The objector accepted that these impacts had been identified and argued that the key issue for Members was whether the benefits of the development outweighed those harms.

 

She noted that proposals for housing on the site had been dismissed on appeal in 1978, 1995 and more recently in 2024, on the basis that development would harm the eastern edge of Sturminster Newton. It was argued that the current scheme was materially similar to previously refused proposals, comprising development on the same undeveloped hillside outside the settlement boundary with similar access arrangements and layout. Whilst recognising the proposed mitigation planting, the objector contended that landscaping could soften views but could not fully mitigate the loss of the site's undeveloped character.

 

She raised concerns regarding the proposed highway access arrangements. She questioned whether sufficient assessment had been undertaken of the cumulative interactions between the principal access, existing residential driveways, pedestrian crossing facilities and routes to the recreation ground. Further concern was expressed regarding the secondary access, its proximity to a hill crest, and recorded vehicle speeds on Manston Road.

In conclusion, she urged Members to consider whether any material circumstances, other than the Council's housing land supply position, had changed since the previous appeal decision and whether the evidence before the Committee justified departing from previous planning decisions relating to the site.

 

Courtenay Hitchcock

He advised that they recognised the need for additional housing in Sturminster Newton and explained that a number of major housing developments were already underway, with further growth proposed through both the Neighbourhood Plan and the emerging Dorset Local Plan. However, concern was expressed regarding whether the application site had been demonstrated to be suitable for development.

Reference was made to the Council's assessment, which identified the site as being affected by areas of high surface water flood risk and the highest category of groundwater emergence.

 

He stated that the drainage strategy had evolved significantly during the application process but that the understanding of groundwater conditions continued to rely primarily on a groundwater investigation undertaken during the summer of 2021. It was noted that the previous Planning Inspector had acknowledged limitations in the available groundwater evidence, and concern was expressed that no equivalent winter groundwater monitoring had been undertaken. He questioned whether the site's maximum groundwater levels were fully understood.

 

He also referred to the identification of two nationally significant female native Black Poplar trees on the site, which had initially been recorded as Poplar trees. It was noted that these rare trees were closely associated with local hydrological conditions and were located adjacent to the proposed sewage pumping station, access road and wider drainage infrastructure.

 

Concern was expressed regarding the potential long-term implications of the development on the trees and their environment.

He suggested that the emergence of additional information during the application process demonstrated that understanding of the site continued to evolve. It was therefore questioned whether sufficient information was available to conclude that the site was suitable for development in principle.

 

In conclusion, he requested that Members carefully consider whether there remained uncertainty regarding groundwater conditions and the potential impacts on the native Black Poplar trees, and whether outline planning permission could be granted with confidence in those circumstances.

 

Applicant/Agent

Alan Williams (Speaking on Behalf of the Applicant)

The agent acknowledged the concerns raised by local residents and advised that these had been fully considered throughout the determination of the application. Members were reminded that the application must be assessed against the current planning policy position and the evidence before the Committee.

 

It was noted that the Council could currently demonstrate a 2.53-year housing land supply and, as a consequence, the policies most important to determining the application were considered out-of-date. The agent advised that the presumption in favour of sustainable development was therefore engaged.

 

The proposal would provide up to 50 dwellings, including 40% affordable housing, together with public open space, biodiversity enhancements and financial contributions towards local infrastructure. These were presented as significant public benefits weighing in favour of the development.

 

Addressing technical matters, the agent stated that the Highway Authority had assessed the proposal and raised no objections, concluding that the residual highway impacts would not be severe. The Lead Local Flood Authority and the Environment Agency were similarly satisfied that flood risk and drainage matters could be addressed through planning conditions. It was further noted that consultees responsible for ecology, trees and residential amenity had raised no objections that would justify refusal.

 

In relation to landscape impacts, the agent acknowledged the site's planning history and the previous appeal decision. However, it was advised that the current application was supported by more detailed landscape evidence, including an updated Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. The agent highlighted that the Council's Landscape Officer had concluded that, whilst the development would alter the existing settlement edge, the effects were not significant enough to warrant objection and could be appropriately mitigated through landscaping.

 

Members were reminded that the application was submitted in outline form, with all matters except access reserved for future consideration, allowing further scrutiny of the detailed design through a subsequent Reserved Matters application.

 

In conclusion, the agent stated that the adverse impacts identified did not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal, particularly in the context of the Council's housing land supply shortfall and therefore supported the officer recommendation for approval.

 

Parish/Town Council Rep

Cllr Andrew Donaldson (Sturminster Newton Town Council)

Cllr Donaldson addressed the Committee on behalf of Sturminster Newton Town Council. He questioned what material changes had occurred since the previous application was considered approximately two years ago and stated that he had seen no evidence to suggest the current proposal was materially different or more acceptable than the earlier scheme.

 

He acknowledged that the Committee's consideration related specifically to the proposed site access; however, he noted that approval of the access would, in effect, facilitate the wider development of the site. He advised that numerous objections had been submitted and confirmed that the Town Council supported the concerns raised by objectors.

 

Cllr Donaldson highlighted highway safety concerns, particularly in relation to traffic approaching from the north. He referred to a history of pedestrian fatalities in the area and expressed the view that the proposal would do nothing to reduce or mitigate existing risks.

 

Referring to the Sturminster Newton Neighbourhood Plan, which remains in force until 2030, he drew attention to the policy statement that “land east of Manston Road is considered unsustainable for further development, particularly because of the topography, making it difficult for landscaping to soften the visual impact of building in the extensive wider views.” He submitted that the landscaping and mitigation measures proposed as part of the application were insufficient to address the visual impact of the development.

 

Cllr Donaldson stated that he could see no justification for granting the application, particularly in light of the previous refusal.

 

Officers responded to the comments raised by the speakers as follows:

• The Lead Project Officer advised that ongoing discussions had taken place with the Highway Authority, which was satisfied that the submitted Transport Assessment had appropriately assessed the impact of the development on the local highway network and affected junctions.
• It was highlighted that the Highway Authority had raised no highway safety or capacity concerns that would justify an objection to the application.
• In relation to concerns regarding the driveway opposite the site, Members were advised that this did not constitute a highway objection and that the Highway Authority considered the proposed arrangements to be acceptable.
• The Lead Project Officer referred to the baseline traffic data and the 85th percentile speed survey, explaining that highway engineers had reviewed the submitted information to ensure the suitability of the highway network. A speed survey had also been undertaken as part of the assessment process.
• Regarding pedestrian crossing facilities, it was noted that this issue had not previously been raised by the Highway Authority. The visibility available and vehicle speeds on the road had been assessed, and appropriate planning conditions could be imposed to secure measures such as dropped kerbs and traffic-calming or speed management works where necessary.

 

Members' questions and comments

• Members questioned why the application was recommended for approval despite a previous appeal dismissal, arguing that the landscape impact remained unchanged and expressing concern that too much weight had been given to the Council's housing land supply shortfall. Concerns were also raised regarding the housing mix, biodiversity net gain, local impacts and the age of the application.
• A proposal for refusal was sought on grounds of landscape and visual harm, impact on the character of Sturminster Newton, and unresolved drainage concerns.
• Concerns were expressed regarding highway safety, particularly the proposed access arrangements, pedestrian safety, visibility, and the absence of a Highway Authority representative. Some Members considered the scale and topography of the site unsuitable for a 50-dwelling development.
• Members raised questions regarding flooding, drainage infrastructure, management of attenuation ponds, affordable housing provision, biodiversity impacts, and the suitability of the development for all users, including older residents.
• Several Members emphasised the importance of the Sturminster Newton Neighbourhood Plan and local consultation, noting that the site had been identified as unsuitable for development and arguing that greater weight should be afforded to local policies and representations.
• Members acknowledged the Council's lack of a five-year housing land supply but stressed that this should not outweigh other planning considerations. Concerns were reiterated regarding landscape harm, encroachment into the countryside, highway safety, drainage, and the potential impact on the delivery of other housing sites.
• Reference was made to previous appeal decisions, the town's character as a hilltop settlement, and the risk of setting a precedent for further development beyond the settlement boundary.

Officers provided the following responses to Members' questions:

• The Lead Project Officer advised that additional information had been submitted since the previous appeals and that the Council's housing land supply position had changed significantly. It was confirmed that biodiversity net gain could be increased to meet the 10% requirement, whilst housing mix would be considered at a later stage. Members were also advised that third party surveys had identified one female and two male Black Poplar trees in the south east corner of the site.
• The Senior Landscape Architect explained that, although previous appeal decisions identified some adverse landscape effects, the visual impact was not considered significant. He advised that the site had moderate landscape sensitivity and value, with impacts capable of being mitigated through landscaping and planting. Detailed drainage matters would be addressed at the reserved matters stage.
• The Development Management Area Manager advised that the proposal sought approval for up to 50 dwellings and two access points, with detailed design matters to be considered later. The Highway Authority had assessed the application and raised no objections to the principle of development or the proposed accesses. Significant weight should be given to the provision of 40% affordable housing.
• Members were advised that previous appeal decisions and matters including flooding, heritage and landscape impacts had been carefully considered. Whilst the site lay outside the settlement boundary, officers had not identified harm sufficient to outweigh the benefits.
• In response to highway concerns, it was confirmed that the Highway Authority had reviewed the transport and visibility assessments and raised no objections. Collision data did not indicate an existing highway safety issue, and the site was considered sustainably located with suitable pedestrian access.

 

The Committee was adjourned from 12:12 - 12:23.

 

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 REFUSE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Jespersen, and seconded by Cllr Jones.

 

Decision: To refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.

 

Break: 12:28 -13:00.