Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Area Lead Planning Officer introduced the application to develop land by the erection of up to 26 No. dwellings, form vehicular and pedestrian access. The current proposals which sought outline permission (with only access for consideration) had been reduced by 6 dwellings from an initial proposal of up to 32 dwellings.  It was proposed that the development would be served by a single vehicular access point and pedestrian crossing from Haywards Lane.

 

The Officer highlighted the proposed car park and advised that the only hedgerow to be removed would be to allow access to the site.  However, if more hedgerow was removed there was a condition in place for that to be replaced.  The site was considered to be a sustainable location and the Applicant had agreed to the S106 obligations, as listed in the report. The economic, social benefits and environmental benefits were highlighted and it was felt that there were no adverse impacts that would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the NPFF taken as a whole.

 

The Transport Development Liaison Manager highlighted the vehicular access to the site with the visibility splay which was suitable for a 30mph approach speed.  A transport statement had been submitted along with a technical note that had looked at the parking accumulation at the school. The impact was minimal in respect of the cars being parked on the side of the road.  Highways felt there were no significant safety issues with the application and therefore had no objections.

 

A number of written submissions objecting to the proposal and a statement by the applicant were read out at the meeting and are attached to these minutes.

 

Local Member for Child Okeford

Cllr Sherry Jespersen made reference to the link through the site to Allen close and asked for further clarity as the Parish Council were not aware this was a permitted path.  The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the applicants believed there could be a permissive footpath, there was a faint line showing on the constraints map. Reference was made to a covenant or legal ownership that one of the neighbours had in place across the access into the site from Allen Close.  Cllr Jespersen was still unclear if members were in a position to give permission for access as no such access existed and it appeared it was unsure who owned the land the other side of the locked gate. Officers advised that the red line boundary was discrete and the number of houses would be appropriate for the site. He made reference to other sites with open boundaries and people did cross them.  A gate could be installed if it was felt this particular access was detrimental to neighbouring properties.   The Transport Development Liaison Manager advised that the footway linked to Allen Close was an indicative opportunity and the southern pedestrian link onto Haywards Lane was sufficient.

 

In respect of Heads of Terms, Cllr Jespersen noted that a reference was made to allotments, but there was inclusion on site for allotments and there was no indication they would be an attractive proposition. There was sufficient allotment provision within the village already.  The Area Lead Planning Officer made reference to the provision made on and off site with a contribution of £308 offsite. He advised that when the S106 was confirmed it would show only be a contribution for off-site allotments.

 

Following a question about the newly dedicated footpath from Netmead Lane officers confirmed that this was a contribution request from the Rights of Way officer for the resurfacing of a public Right of Way nearby. It was confirmed that the Right of Way did not link directly to the site.

 

Members comments and questions:-

Cllr Penfold made reference to the car park and questioned if it was part of the application.  She had not seen any support for the car park and the wondered if the villagers had been asked for their views.  There was concern around who would own the car park and who would be responsible for its upkeep.  Officers confirmed the application was for outline and access only.  Members were looking at an illustrative drawing, the land was part of the site and showed the suitability of the site for up to 26 houses. Car parking did not need to be part of the detailed application.  Nobody had been canvassed, the applicant had looked at various different layouts. The Chairman felt inclined to propose an informative note regarding the car park before going forward.

 

Cllr Taylor asked for clarification of the speed limit on Haywards.  The Transport Development Liaison Manager confirmed that the existing speed limit was 60mph but it changed to 30mph approaching the village and this would remain.   Following a question about the safety of crossing the road from the car park to the school, the Transport Development Liaison Manager advised it was considered to be a safe place to cross and was essential to the proposal.  The appropriate crossing construction would be installed if the application was approved.   The crossing would be within the 30mph limit area.  The Area Lead Planning Officer added that this was an indicative layout and the parking area did not have to be part fop the detailed layout at a later stage.

 

Cllr Hall queried using this opportunity to reduce speed to 20mph outside the school.  The Transport Development Liaison Manager advised that there was no proposal to change the speed limits, village car parking did not identify a need for the limits to be changed and this was not part of the planning process.  If there was a problem with the speed limit, the village would need to apply to the Council for a change.

 

Cllr Andrews asked about a Neighbourhood Plan for Child Okeford and wondered if the North Dorset Plan was still valid.  Officers confirmed that whilst there was not a Neighbourhood Plan the North Dorset Plan was still valid and the village did have a Village Design Statement SPD (supplementary planning document).

 

Cllr Cook expressed concern at the rounding off of the settlement boundary especially for those members that represented rural areas. He felt it was important to look at the wider effects.  Looking at the wider picture of Child Okeford there are so many pieces of land that could have an application put forward as a result the essential rural character of the village would be changed and felt this small development could set a wider precedent.

 

Cllr Ridout highlighted that in the report there were objections raised by the landscape architect when the application was based on 30 dwelling, what was their view on the lower density?  The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that the particular landscape officer had since left the Council but officers were satisfied that the reduction was reflective of the character of the area given the reduction in density to 20dph (dwellings per hectare). The officer had walked the site with landscape officers and the numbers of 26 dwellings were from informal discussions with them.

 

Cllr Pipe was satisfied that there seemed to be a natural rounding off of the settlement boundary, the trees and hedges provision had been highlighted and the 40 % affordable housing was noted.  He asked would this housing be for local people to buy or would it be for rental from a housing association.  The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that a proportion of housing would be for people to buy under shared ownership and some would be rented. There would be a proportion of the housing that would remain for local people.

 

Cllr Legg asked for confirmation that the cash benefit came from every house.  Officers confirmed that all houses would pay a contribution. Following a discussion about the amount of weight members should give to the Village Design Statement, officers advised that with the shortage of the 5 year land supply they would suggest that members gave limited weight to the policies in this Statement.  However, the Statement does not preclude development and the site is not in a conservation area.  The density was akin to what was surrounding the site and had already been reduced.

 

Cllr Legg highlighted a point made by the Parish Council in relation to deferring the application pending the outcome of an appeal on another site in the village.  The Area Lead Planning Officer advised against deferring this application in order to wait for a decision as the other site was very different and the merits of the cases should not be mixed.

 

Cllr Pothecary was concerned for the safety of walkers to the shops and amenities as there was no pavement or dedicated footway.  She also queried if the development would be sustainable.  The Transport Development Liaison Manager advised that the grassed area opposite the proposed pedestrian crossing point would be upgraded to provide a footway and confirmed there would be safe access from this site and was confident there were no safety issues.  There were links to the existing footway facilities also.  The Chairman added that there was a small amount of pavement around the school and the bus stop. 

 

Cllr Carole Jones highlighted that as the Village Design Statement was confirmed in 2007 members should only give limited weight to this. She felt that the fear of development was always greater than the reality of a lived in site and felt that a car park would be a valuable asset.  The Chairman added that the school had not indicated support for a car park.  Cllr Jones felt that the application was sound and proposed the recommendation.

 

Cllr Fry queried how much weight should be given to the application as it was outside the village boundary.   The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that members should really be assessing other matters such as character and sustainability and it would be difficult to defend on this.  Other villages had taken on extensive growth and the Council was starting to push back on some, this was not the case here.

 

Following a discussion about the car park Cllr Fry, whilst being aware of the issues around ownership and liability, saw this as an asset.  The Chairman noted that this was a concern to the village and the school had not requested it.  The Area Lead Planning Officer advised that whilst this was an illustrative drawing, the points being made were relevant and could be addressed at the outline stage.  However, an informative could be added to say that at the present time the Parish Council does not see the need for a car park. Therefore Condition 12 of the decision would need to be deleted.  Members were content with is approach.

 

Proposed: Cllr Jones

Seconded: Cllr Andrews

 

Decision

That delegated authority be given to the Head of Planning to grant permission subject to the addition of an informative, the amended conditions and a Section106 agreement.