Agenda item

Erection of 19no. dwellings & amenity space with access from Lower Street.

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site location plans, aerial photographs, proposed layouts and site photographs, the Case Officer identified the application site and outlined the proposed development, relevant planning history, and applicable planning policies.

 

Members were advised that housing targets had increased significantly since the previous appeal decision and that the site, although outside the settlement boundary, was considered to be in a sustainable location.

 

The site forms Phase 2 of a wider development, with Phase 1 already approved and under construction. Previous appeal concerns relating to layout, pedestrian safety, parking arrangements and the attenuation pond had been addressed through revisions to the scheme, including a dedicated footway, amended parking layout and clearer drainage proposals.

 

Members were advised that the development would provide a mix of affordable and market housing, with design and scale reflecting local character. Officers considered that impacts on the National Landscape, heritage assets and the Conservation Area would be limited.

 

Ecological enhancements, including biodiversity net gain, landscape planting, hedgerow translocation, bat and bird features, were proposed. The site lies within Flood Zone 1, with a low risk of flooding, and the dwellings would incorporate air source heat pumps.

 

The Case Officer concluded that the concerns raised in relation to the previous scheme had been satisfactorily addressed and recommended approval, subject to conditions.

 

Public Participation

 

Public Objection

Cllr George Norris did not attend the meeting.

 

 

Applicant/Agent

Matthew Holmes (Agent)

Mr Holmes advised that the application had been submitted following previous applications and that the plans had been amended during the course of the application in response to feedback received. He welcomed the officer recommendation for approval and stated that the scheme had been carefully designed to fit with the character of the area.

 

He explained that the proposed buildings were of a traditional design and provided a mix of dwelling sizes. Landscaping was proposed for the front and rear gardens together with an area of green space on the western edge of the site. The scheme had also been designed to take account of the site's biodiversity interests.

Mr Holmes stated that the relevant Council policy criteria had been considered throughout the design process. All dwellings would meet or exceed the minimum national space standards and would benefit from appropriately sized rear gardens. He added that the proposed density of development was comparable to that of surrounding properties.

 

Reference was made to the officer’s report, which concluded that the proposals were acceptable in terms of design and visual impact and would provide a suitable living environment for future residents. He further noted that the proposed dwellings were appropriately separated from neighbouring properties and that the relationship between existing and proposed homes had been carefully planned.

Mr Holmes reminded Members that the proposal was unchanged from the previous application that had been determined at appeal. He stated that the appeal decision had confirmed that the development was acceptable in terms of design, heritage and drainage considerations and that the site represented an appropriate location for new housing. He explained that the previous appeal had been dismissed for two specific reasons: the mix of affordable housing units and housing supply matters.

He advised that both issues had now been addressed. The affordable housing mix had been amended to meet the relevant requirements and housing supply calculations had changed since the appeal decision. As Dorset was now experiencing a housing land supply shortfall, the proposal would assist in meeting identified housing needs.

 

In conclusion, Mr Holmes considered the proposal to be a well-designed residential development that was appropriate to its context and capable of delivering much-needed housing on a site that was suitable for residential development by virtue of its location and the characteristics of the surrounding area.

 

Parish Council

Cllr Rachael Rowe (Speak on behalf of Okeford Fitzpaine Parish Council)

Cllr Rowe acknowledged that the proposed development contained some interesting design features; however, she advised that the Parish Council remained opposed to the scheme.

 

She informed Members that, when the Parish Council had last considered the site, Phase One of the development had been suspended due to instability in construction costs. As a result, she questioned when the proposed homes would be delivered, despite the acknowledged need for additional housing within Dorset.

Cllr Rowe stated that the development would extend beyond the settlement boundary of Okeford Fitzpaine and would therefore result in development within the open countryside. She expressed concerns regarding the impact on wildlife and suggested that approval could set a precedent for further development outside the settlement boundary.

 

Concerns were also raised in relation to highway safety. Cllr Rowe advised that access to the development would be via Lower Street and that the Parish Council remained concerned about visibility at the junction with Play Close. She explained that vehicles parked outside existing properties could restrict sightlines, particularly during busy periods. Additional concerns were raised regarding the proximity of the village play area, with fears that children may not be readily visible to drivers because of limited visibility from the junction.

 

She further noted that Lower Street was not routinely gritted during winter conditions and considered that the cumulative impact of traffic generated by this and other developments in the village would exacerbate existing highway issues. Parking pressures within the village centre were also highlighted, with vehicles frequently parked on local streets, which in turn could further affect visibility and road safety.

Cllr Rowe advised that the site was located away from the main transport corridor and was therefore less well connected to facilities and services. Public transport provision within the village was described as limited, and no plans had been identified to increase services to meet the demands arising from additional housing development.

 

The Parish Council also expressed concern that, despite continued housing growth, local infrastructure had deteriorated. Reference was made to the loss of significant employment opportunities in the area, the closure of the village primary school in 2023, and the resulting absence of pre-school and childcare provision. Cllr Rowe also referred to the loss of the visiting GP service, inadequate or poor-quality pavement infrastructure restricting access for wheelchair users, ageing electricity infrastructure resulting in frequent power outages, and limited public transport services.

 

Members questions and comments

• Members commented that the development was a modest extension to the existing settlement and sought reassurance that affordable housing would be visually consistent with market housing. Clarification was also requested on refuse collection arrangements.
• Questions were raised regarding the access road, pedestrian provision and adoption standards. It was noted that previous concerns regarding the housing mix had been addressed, and support for the application was expressed.
• Concerns were raised regarding local school capacity and the availability of education facilities.
• Members sought clarification on pedestrian links, management of communal areas and drainage arrangements. It was suggested that the site layout appeared constrained and could have been designed more efficiently.
• Concerns were expressed about the settlement's sustainability, particularly the availability of local employment, healthcare and education services, with questions raised as to whether residents would need to travel elsewhere for many day-to-day needs.
• Members also questioned whether Okeford Fitzpaine would still meet the criteria for designation as a larger village given the loss of some local services and facilities.

 

In response to Members’ questions, officers provided clarification on a number of matters relating to the proposed development:

 

• Officers advised that the scheme included footways throughout the development and would provide suitable pedestrian access.
• Okeford Fitzpaine was considered a sustainable location in planning terms, consistent with the settlement hierarchy and previous appeal findings, despite the absence of local education and healthcare facilities.
• The Highway Authority had assessed the proposal and raised no objections, subject to conditions.
• Officers confirmed that any significant design concerns regarding affordable housing would have been addressed during the application process.
• Refuse collection would be accommodated through kerbside collection, with a small number of residents required to present bins at nearby collection points.
• Members were advised that contributions towards local infrastructure would be secured through a planning obligation and that nearby settlements provided education facilities.
• The development was designed to accommodate residents and service vehicles, with drainage measures incorporated to manage surface water and reduce flood risk.
• Officers noted that applications must be determined against current planning policies and advised that Okeford Fitzpaine would continue to be classified as a larger village within the settlement hierarchy.

 

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 GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Ridout, and seconded by Cllr Brenton.

 

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.