Decision:
That the Council
will no-longer defend the reason for refusal relating to the lack of on-site
education infrastructure, which the Council had previously put forward in
relation to the refusal of application P/OUT/2023/01166, providing that the
S106 agreement ensures that the Council retains the right to require on-site
primary school provision, and sets out an appropriate mechanism to enable a 2
Form Entry (2FE) primary school site to be identified (and transferred to the
Council with an appropriate financial contribution towards construction) at a
later stage.
Planning
appeal reference:
APP/D1265/W/23/3336518
Planning
application:
P/OUT/2023/01166
Description
of development: Mixed
use development of up to 1,700 dwellings including affordable housing and care
provision; 10,000sqm of employment space in the form of a business park;
village centre with associated retail, commercial,
community and health facilities; open space including the provision of suitable
alternative natural green space (SANG); biodiversity enhancements; solar array,
and new roads, access arrangements and associated infrastructure (Outline
Application with all matters reserved apart from access off Hillbury
Road)
Location: Land To The
South Of Ringwood Road Alderholt
An
application for the above development was considered by the Eastern Area
Planning Committee on 5th July 2023. The application refused for the
following reasons:
1. The
proposal would have adverse impacts on the Dorset Heathlands Special Protection
Area (SPA), Dorset Heaths Special Area of Conservation (SAC), New Forest
SPA/SAC and River Avon SAC and it has not been demonstrated that appropriate
mitigation can or will be provided, contrary to Policy ME2 of the adopted
Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – part 1 2014, the Dorset Heathlands
Planning Framework 2020-2025 SPD, and paragraphs 180-182 of the National
Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This forms a clear reason for refusal of the
proposal in accordance with NPPF para 11 d) i.
2. The
proposed development would represent significant development contrary to the
settlement hierarchy, which is intended to direct development to the most
sustainable locations. While facilities and transport options are
proposed, it has not been demonstrated that these would be successful and
viable in the long-term. It has therefore not been demonstrated that the
proposal would limit the need to travel and offer a genuine choice of transport
modes. Contrary to Policy KS2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local
Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraphs 73 and 105 of the NPPF.
3. The
submitted masterplan does not demonstrate how the proposed uses will function
well in terms of their relationship to each other and to the existing
settlement of Alderholt. In particular, the positioning of the local centre is not considered to be optimised
to accommodate and sustain an appropriate mix of development. Contrary to
paragraph 130 of the NPPF.
4. The
proposed development fails to make an appropriate contribution to affordable
housing, contrary to Policy LN3 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset
Local Plan – Part 1, 2014. The submitted viability assessment relies upon
inputs and assumptions which have not been accepted by the Local Planning
Authority and statutory consultees and has not been subject to independent
scrutiny. As such, it has not been demonstrated that a policy-compliant level
of affordable housing cannot be viably accommodated on the site, contrary to
policy LN3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – Part 1, 2014.
5. The
proposal includes uses defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF as ‘main town centre uses’ expected to total 2,958sqm and include
1,259sqm of retail. The application is not accompanied by a sequential
test or retail impact assessment, contrary to Policy KS7 of the Christchurch
and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraphs 87 and 90 of the
NPPF.
6. The
proposal does not include the on-site education infrastructure necessary to
meet the needs of the development, and it is not possible to accommodate the
projected increase in first-school age children within the existing St James
First School. The development would not ensure a sufficient choice of
school places is available to meet the needs of existing and new communities,
contrary to paragraph 96 of the NPPF.
7. The
submitted Transport Assessment fails through the use of
an unacceptable methodology and the inclusion of insufficient information to
correctly identify the highways impacts arising from the proposal and how these
could be mitigated. It has not been demonstrated that there would not be
an unacceptable impact on highways safety, nor that residual cumulative impacts
on the road network would not be severe. Contrary to Policy KS11 of the
Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraph 111 of
the NPPF.
8. The
proposal, by bringing additional traffic and recreational activity into the
Cranborne Chase and West Wiltshire Downs Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
(AONB), would result in environmental impacts and a loss of tranquillity
the extent of which has not been adequately identified and mitigated within the
application. Contrary to Policy HE3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset
Local Plan: Part 1, 2014, and to paragraphs 174 and 176 of the NPPF.
9. Insufficient
information has been provided regarding surface water management from the
development. It has not been demonstrated that the proposed surface water
drainage scheme can be viably achieved on the site. Contrary to Policy
ME6 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan – part 1, 2014, and
paragraphs 167 and 169 of the National Planning Policy Framework.
The
application is currently the subject of an appeal. For the reasons set out
below, the decision has been taken that the Council will no-longer be defending
the sixth reason for refusal relating to education provision, providing that
the S106 agreement ensures that the Council retains the right to require
on-site primary school provision, and sets out an
appropriate mechanism to enable the school site to be identified (and planning
permission sought) at a later stage.
The
decision not to defend the reason for refusal relating to education provision
is taken under delegated powers, as set out in paragraph 139 of the Officer
Scheme of Delegation (which forms part of the Council’s constitution).
Paragraph 139 provides the following delegated powers:
To
undertake all action relating to any matter arising in respect of any appeal,
call-in and/or other inquiry and/or hearing of whatever nature arising pursuant
to any Town and Country Planning Legislation including for the avoidance of
doubt but without prejudice to generality of the foregoing:
(a) to
determine any response required in relation to any procedural issue relating to
any such matter including for the avoidance of doubt whether any such matter
should be dealt with by means of written representation, hearing or public inquiry;
(b) to
determine any procedural issue relating to any such matter including the venue
for the holding on any hearing and/or appeal; and/or
(c) to
determine whether or not to defend any reason for
refusal.
These
delegated powers have been nominated to the Service Manager for Development
Management and Enforcement via the Local Scheme of Nomination for Planning
Services – Executive Director of Place.