Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning.

The Committee considered application 6/2020/0013 to erect 17 dwellings and the creation of an access and associated parking and landscaping at land at White Lovington, Bere Regis.

 

Councillor Peter Wharf - one of the two local Ward Members – had requested that the application be presented to Committee due to concerns regarding the perceived increase in dwellings compared to the number allocated in the Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan.

 

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. What the application entailed – with 6 of the dwellings being affordable, with monies provided to secure 40% provision - and the planning history of the area – the site being allocated for residential development in the Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan (BRNP) - were also detailed. The presentation focused on not only what the development entailed and its detailed design, but what benefits it would bring and the effect it would have on residential amenity and the character the area.

 

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

properties would be designed, along with their ground floor plans; how it would look; proposed street scenes; the materials to be used; access and highway considerations; environmental considerations; the means of landscaping and screening and its setting within that part of White Lovington and the wider landscape of Bere Regis, particularly that - whilst it was within the Settlement Boundary of Bere Regis - it was within 400m from Black Hill Heath ,designated as SSSI heathland and Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation.

 

Officers showed the development’s relationship with other adjacent residential

development and how the buildings were designed to be in keeping with the

characteristics of the established local 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.

 

How the relationship between the proposal and the provisions of the Local Plan; the NPPF and the BRNP were applied and what considerations needed to be given to each were explained, as well as the weight to be given to each.

 

In summary, officers planning assessment adjudged that the overall design of

the development was now considered to be largely acceptable, with all,

significant, planning matters having been appropriately, or adequately,

addressed. Having assessed the material considerations these

were seen to be acceptable and sufficiently compliant with national and local planning policies – and addressed and complied with the provisions of the Neighbourhood Plan - so the recommendation being made by officers to approve the application was based on this.

 

The Committee were notified of the 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.

 

Formal consultation had seen an objection from Bere Regis Parish Council. The Committee were then notified of those written submissions received and officers read these direct to the Committee. Key issues and objections raised, the Parish Council included, related primarily to concerns that the proposals were not in accordance with the BRNP because the proposals were for 17 dwellings and this is considerably more than the ‘approximately 12’ cited in the Plan. 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.

 

Of importance was that officers did not consider that the proposal conflicted with the BRNP for the following reasons:

• the site is allocated for housing in the BRNP

·       Policy BR7 stated ‘New residential development will be allowed on the five

allocated sites shown on Map 3, comprising…

o        White Lovington- Land extending to about 1.0 Hectare (2.5 acres) approximately 12 homes’

• the preamble noted that the site ‘should be developed at a lower density

to respect the existing development in that area’ but the policy did not

include an upper limit on housing numbers and the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area is considered appropriate.

• The Neighbourhood Plan encouraged developers to ‘work closely with

BRPC, parishioners and PDC to consider development density and

architectural styles before submitting planning applications for any of the

sites’ but such engagement was not a policy requirement which could

influence the determination of the application.

 

The Committee were informed that in the light of the Housing Delivery test it has been necessary to consider this application against paragraph 11 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). In this case the NPPF policies did not provide any clear reasons for refusing the development proposed and no adverse impacts had been identified that would outweigh the benefits. The proposed erection of 17 dwellings made efficient use of land without harming the character of the area and would contribute to housing supply, including the provision of affordable housing which can be secured by a planning obligation. The proposed dwellings were considered to be of an appropriate scale, size and design and acceptable in terms of impact on the character and appearance of the local area. The impact on neighbouring amenity, highway safety, biodiversity and drainage were also considered to be acceptable subject to conditions and securing appropriate heathland mitigation via a planning obligation. The proposal was therefore considered to be sustainable development for the purposes of NPPF paragraph 11. The application had been considered in the light of the presumption in favour of

sustainable development so officer’s view was that permission should be granted. It was now for the Committee to adjudge whether this was the case and whether the number of dwelling proposed was acceptable.

 

The opportunity was then 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.

 

Some important points raised were:-

·       access arrangements being proposed as they were and the possible use of Rye Hill.

·       footway needs and how these were to be accommodated.

·       access to the rear of properties and what measures were in place to manage this.

·       what Heathland mitigation there was to be and the timeframe for this and an understanding that the south western part of the site was unlikely to be developed because of heath.

·       how the number of buildings proposed conformed with the Neighbourhood Plan and what considerations should be taken in to account in how this might be satisfactorily addressed so as to provide what was necessary and, in doing so, maintain the affordable housing ratio.

·       the provision for green space/ recreation.

 

Officers addressed the questions raised providing what they considered to be satisfactory answers, which the Committee saw as generally acceptable.

 

Whilst the majority of the Committee considered the proposal to be acceptable - understanding the fundamental issue of housing land supply and the delivery of the necessary number of houses in Purbeck, given it had failed the housing delivery test, there was a presumption to grant unless there was clear reason otherwise to demonstrably outweigh this - members considered that this development would significantly contribute to the housing supply in Dorset and was seen to be an asset. A balanced judgement had to be made on what number of dwellings was acceptable but, given the officer’s recommendation and the basis for this; that the site was allocated for residential development; that this development would make the best use of the land available and still be deemed as being too dense - with affordable housing being guaranteed - then they considered the proposal to be acceptable, as proposed. Moreover, it was mentioned that if the number of properties were to be reduced, this would have an adverse effect on the affordable number too.

 

However other members were of the view that whilst affordable housing should be welcomed, in their view this didn’t override the provisions of the BRNP and what this was designed to achieve – through a democratic process – in terms of housing numbers, and that its provisions should be upheld. They considered that the applicant should have made a greater effort to engage with the Parish Council on how the application might be seen to be acceptable.

 

The Solicitor clarified that the planning judgement to be made was not necessarily to focus on a quantifiable assessment, but should be based on a quality, density and impact assessment. Moreover, absolute numbers were less crucial to any decision than, if the Committee were minded to refuse - should state why 17 was considered unacceptable.

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having taken into account the officer’s report and presentation; the written representations; and what they had heard at the meeting, in being proposed by Councillor Shane Bartlett and seconded by Councillor Robin Cook, on being put to the vote, the Committee agreed - by 6:4 - to grant permission, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph

17 of the officer’s report.

 

Resolved

1)That planning permission be granted for application 6/2020/0013 subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 17 of the report.

B) That planning permission be refused for the reasons set out in paragraph 17 of the report if the s106 obligation is not completed by October 2021 or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

 

Reasons for Decisions

• The land is allocated in the Bere Regis Neighbourhood Plan for residential

development.

• The location is considered to be sustainable and the proposal is

acceptable in its design and general visual impact.

• It is possible to secure mitigation to make the development acceptable in

relation to internationally protected Dorset Heathland.

• There are no material considerations which would warrant refusal of this

application