Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

 

The Committee considered application 6/2018/0606 on a proposal for a development comprising 28 dwellings, of which 22 were affordable housing units and 6 open market housing units. Following the grant of Outline Planning Permission (OPP) under application 6/2015/0687, this application now sought approval for all of the Reserved Matters for the development; pertaining to access, layout, scale, appearance and landscaping – as defined and identified in the national planning practice guidance - at Spyway Orchard, Durnford Drove, Langton Matravers.

 

Officers drew the attention of the Committee to the planning history of the site, in that OPP was allowed by the Planning Inspectorate in March 2017, on appeal. Accordingly, it was confirmed, and emphasised, that this application sought approval for the Reserved Matters pursuant to the OPP permission and should be the focus of the Committee’s considerations.

 

For the Committee’s understanding the Outline Planning Permission established the principle of development at this location​; setting out the density and type of dwellings; conditioned surface water management, foul drainage, a biodiversity mitigation plan and an arboricultural method statement, as well as a S106 Planning Obligation securing the affordable housing to meet the identified local need. The Committee were informed that in light of the Planning Inspectorate’s judgement that the principle of the development was acceptable, it was solely now the Reserved Matters that were for consideration.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, officers provided context of what the main proposals, principles and planning issues of the development were; how these were to be progressed; how the development would contribute to meeting housing needs; and what this entailed. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what effect it would have on residential amenity and the character the area, including the AONB and protected trees.

 

Plans and photographs provided an illustration of the location, orientation, dimensions – form, bulk, size and mass - and appearance of the development and of the individual properties, with examples being given of how typical semi-detached, terraced and apartment block properties were designed, along with their ground floor plans; how it would look; proposed street scenes; the materials to be used; how footpaths would be reconfigured and accommodated; access and highway considerations; the means of landscaping, screening and tree cover, explaining which trees were to be felled and which would be retained; and its setting within the village and wider landscape - which was incorporated within the Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. A biodiversity obligation was being fulfilled at the easternmost point of the site by way of an environmental protection zone, with ecological provision being part of the application.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential development in Durnford Drove and Gypshayes - as well as Langton House, swimming pool, farm and The Hyde - and how the buildings were designed to be in keeping with the environment. The characteristics and topography of the site was shown and its relationship with the highway network and to properties in the adjoining roads in particular. Views into the site and around it were shown, which provided a satisfactory understanding of all that was necessary.

 

Officers explained that, should it be necessary, there could be provision made for a Construction Management Plan (CMP) to govern the management of the development works, to complement any grant of permission.

 

In summary, officers planning assessment adjudged that the overall design of the development was considered to be of a sufficiently high quality and, whilst planning conditions would be necessary to properly control details of the development, particularly within the Dorset AONB – it being necessary that the detail of some of these conditions – 3,4,5,6 and 7 – be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council - as was the usual practice - the development was considered to be acceptable. They were satisfied that the detailed design and impact on character and appearance of the area, including the AONB and protected trees; highway safety, access and parking; impact on residential amenity; ecology/biodiversity; and housing type were all acceptable, with all significant planning matters having been appropriately, or adequately, addressed. ​

    

As there were no material considerations that warranted refusal of the application; that the development had Outline Planning Permission; that approval of the Reserved Matters would accord with the Development Plan and the objectives of the NPPF and would help deliver affordable housing in an acceptable location for a rural exception site; that the detailed design proposals were acceptable in terms of impact on the character and appearance of the area; that there were no objections on highway safety or traffic grounds and; that there would not be demonstrable harm to neighbouring residential amenity, this formed the basis of the officer’s recommendation in seeking approval of the application.

 

Prior to consideration of the merits of the application in its own right, Councillor Alex Brenton requested a site visit be held on the grounds that the Committee should see at first hand how the layout of the site would look, how land might be used more effectively and what tree cover there was, so as to have a better understanding in coming to their decision. Calls for a site visit were supported by Councillor Beryl Ezzard to look at the access arrangements and safety aspects of this, given how little scope there was for improvements to be made given the constraints of the highway at that point, as this was part of Reserved Matters. Utility issues and land ownership were highlighted too. These were the grounds on which a site visit was being proposed. The Council for the protection of Rural England had also asked that a visit be held in their submission.

 

Officers referred to the view of the Inspector that access arrangements were satisfactory, with visibility being acceptable and no concerns being raised by the Highways Officer and no reported accidents or conflicts being evident. Moreover, issues of land ownership were not for consideration either

 

Having heard the arguments made for a site visit, the Chairman’s view was that focus should be on the application at hand and only if there were material considerations pertaining to that which would justify a site visit, could one be held. She had not heard sufficient reasons, in respect of the issues to be considered for this application from members, to agree to a site visit.

 

Formal consultation had generated an objection from Langton Matravers

Parish Council, concerned at the development’s scale and layout; access; landscape; drainage; the need for a CMP and the need for enhanced environmental considerations. Mention was made of a booklet covering the history of the Spyway Orchard application site, which had been sent to members prior to the meeting by the Parish Council.

 

The Committee were notified of those written submissions received and officers read these direct to the Committee - being appended to these minutes. Having heard what was said, officers responded to some of the pertinent issues raised, being confident that each one could be addressed by the provisions of the application.

 

It was recognised that this application had become notably contentious over a number of years, with the views of the Parish Council being similar to those who had formally objected to the application - and contained in the submitted statements - and were drawn to the attention of Members on the grounds that the development would :-

·       be unacceptable outside of the village and would have an adverse AONB and Heritage Coast impact

·        be of excessive scale/density, being out of character with the area and would generate tree loss and light pollution

·       be non-compliant with policy RES and its provisions

·       compromise privacy, having an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties

·       generate excessive traffic and highway safety problems.

·       cause/exacerbate surface water and foul water flooding problems.

·       have an adverse impact on protected species/wildlife.

 

The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) supported the local community concerns too.

 

Another response accepted the development in itself, but raised concerns

about highway safety and surface water drainage. Alternatively, support was received from a neighbouring resident, whilst the Governors of St George Primary School supported the development in principle as it was likely to contribute towards generating additional pupil numbers by attracting families with children. Moreover, Dorset AONB Landscape Planning Officer, the Senior Tree and Landscape Officer, Highways Management, Rights of Way, and Natural England all either supported the application or raised no objection to it. 

 

The opportunity was given for members to ask questions of the presentation

and what they had heard, in seeking clarification of aspects so as to have a better understanding in coming to a decision. One member considered that the Committee should be given the opportunity to consider, in detail, conditions 3,4,5,6 and 7 given that it related to the fundamental principles of reserved matters, rather than this being delegated to officers. In response officers emphasised that this was the usual standard practice adopted in dealing with this and provided a flexible means of achieving this within agreed standards, guidelines and regulations.

 

It was confirmed that the Inspector was satisfied with the impact the development would have on the Dorset AONB, taking into account the issues raised previously by Purbeck District Council.

 

Officers confirmed that in allowing the appeal, the Inspector had emphasised that this was not considered to be a major development in the Dorset AONB, pertaining to the provisions of the National Planning Policy Framework. To emphasise the importance of this, officers took the opportunity to clarify what the criteria for major development was.

 

Officers confirmed that much of the context of the objections raised related to aspects of the OPP – the opportunity for which to consider had since passed – and reiterated that, in light of the Planning Inspectorate’s judgement that the principle of the development was acceptable, Reserved Matters issues should be the sole focus for Committee.

 

Nevertheless, concern was raised that the application did not require the need for sustainable environmental measures to be included in the development. Once again this was a consideration of the OPP. Moreover, whilst it was indeed recognised that the Council had declared a climate emergency, as it stood, there were no policies that existed to compel the need for such measures. As some members were minded to refuse the application, it was confirmed that it was necessary for them to identify sound material planning reasons for doing this. Upon reflection, such reasons could not be identified.

 

It was clarified that the dimensions of the rooms in the dwellings and their design were acceptable in meeting the necessary the national standards for affordable housing. Consideration of the provision of external lighting was to be controlled by condition.

 

Given all this one member asked for further consideration of the application to be deferred until more detail was available and the matters raised looked into. However, the Chairman reminded the committee that regardless of what members might wish to see, they were only being asked to consider the application as it stood.

 

Officers confirmed that the Inspector was content with the illustrative layout and design of the development although, subsequently, modifications had been made to improve this, to address certain aspects. Whilst it was claimed that no other flats existed in Langton Matravers, officers were content that the design proposed was still in keeping with the character of the village and proportionate.

 

Officers also confirmed that the affordable housing provision was designed to meet local need and were not on the open market. It was confirmed that, as it stood, there was no second home restrictions on those houses on the open market.

 

Other members acknowledged that how detailed aspects of some conditions would be dealt with accorded with what was the usual standard practice for the Council and was both acceptable and practical.  They were satisfied that the development met the provisions of the NPPF and that the standards of design were acceptable and realised the optimum density for the site, it was acknowledged that there was an identifiable need for housing to meet local need and this development would go some considerable way to achieving that. Moreover, the families that it would undoubtedly attract would ensure that the local school remained viable. They were content with how the development would be screened and the landscaping proposed and based on the evidence provided there would be no adverse access or highway issues. Overall, they considered that the development made the best use of the land it could and would be an asset to the village.

 

As an aside, one member mentioned the benefit of having an Architect’s Panel to scrutinise design and appearance of development prior to Planning committee consideration and commended this to the Council.

 

The local Ward member, Councillor Cherry Brooks, toom the opportunity to speak, being minded to support the application, subject to receiving satisfactory answers to a series of questions asked relating to:-

·       adequate bedroom size

·       houses ridge prominent above tree line

·       how water run off would be managed

·       provision of bin stores

·       what tree replacement scheme there would be for the access/works compound

·       retaining accessibility along the bordering northern footpath and was this actually bridleway

·       what provision was there for renewable energy, as set out in the emerging Purbeck Local plan

·       could any lighting provision be mitigated by condition, so as to avoid unnecessary light pollution

 

Officers addressed the questions raised providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers. In particular, they agreed that there could be scope for the provision of bin stores, replacement planting of the compound and lighting controls, all by condition. The Solicitor confirmed that the footpath referred to was a right of way.

 

The local member thanked officers for their clarification but remained disappointed that there was no insistence in the application of provision of renewable energy measures. Nevertheless, given the answers received, she considered these to be satisfactory in her better understanding of the application and considered the development would complement the amenities of the village i.e. shops, post office and school.

 

The Solicitor advised that any conditions requiring renewable energy measures required a policy basis and that it was a matter for members to determine the weight to be given to the Council’s emerging policy on this. Finally, officers confirmed that the development was contained wholly within the red line drawing accompanying the application, with anything outside that being of no consequence to the Committee’s considerations.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application, having

understood what was being proposed and the reasoning for this; having taken

into account the officer’s report and presentation, the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, and having received satisfactory answers to questions raised, the Committee were satisfied in their understanding of what the proposal entailed and the reasoning for this and, on that basis - and being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by Councillor John Worth - on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed - by 7:3 - that the application should be approved, subject to the conditions set out in the paragraph of the report relating to this and taking into account the variations to conditions asked for.

 

During the course of the debate on the application, members voted to exceed the 3 hours limit for continuous debate so as to be able to come to their decision.

 

Resolved

That planning permission for application 6/2018/0606 be granted, subject to the conditions, and Informative Notes, set out in the paragraph of the report relating to this, this being:-

1.               The development permitted must be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans drawing numbers:

7502-L01, 7502-SK01, 7502-D02RevB, 7502-D03RevB, 7502-D04, 7502-D05, 7502-D06RevA, 7502-D07RevA, 7502-D08, 7502-D09, 7502-D10RevB, 7502-D11RevB, 7502-D12, 7502-D13, 7502-D14RevA, 7502-D15, 7502-D16, 7502-D17, 7502-D18, 7502-D19, 7502-D20RevA, 7502-D21RevA, 7502-D22RevA, 7502-D23, 7502-D24RevA, 7502-D25RevA, 7502-D26RevB, 7502-D27, 7502-D28, 7502-D29, LA01-D-Landscape Strategy, 18027-0202-P07 and 18027-WFB-00-ZZ-DR-C-0202. 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

2.       Despite the information submitted with the application no trees shall be felled other than the following trees identified on the Soundwood Tree Consultancy drawing SW1a ‘Tree Constraints Management Works’ Tree numbers:- 288 sycamore, 301 sycamore, 302 ash, 307 ash, 308 hawthorn, Part G1 - 9 sycamore, G3 - 9 sycamore, G4 - 5 ash and 9 sycamore (total 37 trees).

Reason: To prevent the unnecessary removal of existing trees to ensure that the development does not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Dorset AONB.

3.       Despite the information submitted with the application this approval does not relate to any details of surface water drainage, foul water drainage, water supply or other utilities infrastructure shown on any approved drawing. Before any ground works start details of surface water management and foul water drainage disposal are required to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council under the terms of condition numbers 4 and 5 of the outline planning reference 6/2015/0687.

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning.

4.       Despite the information submitted with the application this approval does not relate to any boundary walls or fencing or altered grounds levels shown on any approved drawing. Before any above ground work takes place details of these matters must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The development must then be implemented in accordance with the approved details.

Reason: To ensure proper control is exercised on these details so that the development does not have a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the Dorset AONB.

5.       Despite the information submitted with the application, before any above ground work takes place precise details of new tree and shrub and other planting shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. These details shall include replacement tree planting in the location of tree numbers 307, 308, G3 and G4 identified in condition number 2. The development must then be implemented in accordance with the approved details. All planting must take place within the first full planting season following the substantial completion of the development or the first occupation of the dwellings, whichever is the sooner.

Reason: To ensure proper control is exercised on these details so that the development is enhanced and does not have a detrimental impact upon the character of the Dorset AONB.

6.       Before any above ground work takes place a maintenance schedule and management plan in respect of the planting required under condition 5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council. The planting must then be maintained in accordance with the approved maintenance schedule and management plan. Any trees or plants of the agreed landscape scheme which within a period of five years from the completion of development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased, must be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless local planning authority gives written permission to any variation.

Reason: To ensure the landscaping of the site establishes successfully.

7.       The manufacturers name, product name and colour of: all external facing and roofing materials for the buildings; all surfacing materials of footpaths; accesses; driveways and; parking areas, must be submitted to and approved in writing by the Council before they are used on the proposal. The development must then be implemented using the approved materials. 

Reason: To ensure satisfactory appearance of the development and in order to ensure that the materials used do not have a detrimental impact upon the Dorset AONB.

8.       Before the development is occupied or utilised the access, geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shown on Drawing Numbers 18027-0202-P07 and 7502-01-D02RevB must be constructed, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Council. Thereafter, these must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and available for the purposes specified.

Reason: To ensure the proper and appropriate development of the site.

9.       Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised the visibility splay areas as shown on Drawing Number 18027-WFB-00-ZZ-DR-C-0202 must be cleared/excavated to a level not exceeding 0.60 metres above the relative level of the adjacent carriageway. The splay areas must thereafter be maintained and kept free from all obstructions.

Reason: To ensure that a vehicle can see or be seen when exiting the access.

10.     Before the development hereby approved is occupied or utilised provision must be made to ensure that no surface water drains directly from the site onto the adjacent public highway.

Reason: To ensure that the site is properly drained and that surface water does not flow onto the highway.

11.     No street lamps or other external lighting fixtures must be installed in the development unless in accordance with details submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.

Reason: To enable the Council to retain control over external lighting to prevent it from having a detrimental impact upon the character of the Dorset AONB.  

12      Before any of the dwellings comprising plots 11 to 16 are first occupied, facilities for the storage of household waste and recyclable materials to serve those dwellings must be provided on the site in accordance with a detailed scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Council.  The facilities must thereafter be retained and maintained at all times.

Reason: To ensure appropriate provision is made for the storage of household waste and recyclable materials to serve plots 11 to 16 in the interests of the amenity of the locality.

13.     Informative Note - Community Infrastructure Levy. This approval is subject to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) introduced by the Town and Country Planning Act 2008. A CIL liability notice has been issued with this approval that requires a financial payment. Full details are explained in the notice.

14.     Informative Note - Matching Plans. Please check that any plans approved under the building regulations match the plans approved in this planning approval. Do not start work until revisions are secured to either of the two approvals to ensure that the development has the required planning permission.

15.     Informative Note - Privately managed estate roads. As the new road layout does not meet with the Highway Authority’s road adoption standards or is not offered for public adoption under Section 38 of the Highways Act 1980, it will remain private and its maintenance will remain the responsibility of the developer, residents or housing company.

16.     Informative Note - Advance Payments Code. The applicant should be advised that the Advance Payments Code under Sections 219-225 of the Highways Act 1980 may apply in this instance. The Code secures payment towards the future making-up of a private street prior to the commencement of any building works associated with residential, commercial and industrial development. The intention of the Code is to reduce the liability of potential road charges on any future purchasers which may arise if the private street is not made-up to a suitable standard and adopted as publicly maintained highway. Further information is available from Dorset County Council’s Development team. They can be reached by telephone at 01305 225401, by email at dli@dorsetcc.gov.uk, or in writing at Development team, Dorset Highways, Environment and the Economy, Dorset County Council, County Hall, Dorchester, DT1 1XJ.

17.     Informative Note - Fire safety. To fight fires effectively the Fire and Rescue Service needs to be able to manoeuvre its equipment and appliances to suitable positions adjacent to any premises. Therefore, the applicant is advised that they should consult with Building Control and Dorset Fire and Rescue Service to ensure that Fire Safety - Approved Document B Volume 1 Dwelling houses B5 of The Building Regulations 2006 can be fully complied with.

18.     Informative Note - Superfast broadband. Please give some thought to how your new development will be ready to connect to superfast broadband for use by the occupants. Find out more about BT Openreach and the Home Builders Federation cost sharing approach via this website link http://www.newdevelopmentsopenreach.co.uk/ BT Openreach and Virgin Media also have the following guides: http://www.newdevelopments-openreach.co.uk/developers-andarchitects/developershandbook.aspx Page 25 https://keepup.virginmedia.com/Content/networkExpansion/doc/New_Build_ Developers_Guide.pdf Dorset Council has also produced information for developers about providing fibre broadband in new housing developments at: https://www.dorsetcouncil.gov.uk/business-consumers-licences/superfastdorset/about-superfastdorset/guidance-for-property-developers.aspx.

19.     Statement of positive and proactive working: In accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, the Council takes a positive and creative approach to development proposals focused on solutions. The Council works with applicants/agents in a positive and proactive manner by; offering a pre-application advice service, and as appropriate updating applicants/agents of any issues that may arise in the processing of their application and where possible suggesting solutions. For this application: the applicant/agent was updated of any issues after the initial site visit; the opportunity to submit additional information to the scheme/address issues was given which were found to be acceptable.

Reasons for Decision

As set out in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the officer’s report:-

• The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) says that approval

should be granted for sustainable development unless specific policies in

the NPPF indicate otherwise.

• Approval would help deliver affordable housing in an acceptable location

in accordance with an outline planning permission.

• The detailed design proposals are acceptable in terms of impact on the

character and appearance of the area.

• There are no objections on highway safety or traffic grounds.

• There will not be demonstrable harm to neighbouring residential amenity.

• There are no material considerations that warrant refusal of the

application.