78-home development at Land North Of Castle Avenue, Okeford Fitzpaine

What was proposed

The application sought 78 dwellings with new vehicle and pedestrian access, landscaping, open space and drainage attenuation.

“Description of development 5.1 Full planning permission is sought for the development of 78 dwellings, form vehicular and pedestrian access, landscaping, open space and drainage attenuation. Background and relevant planning history…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The greenfield agricultural site lay outside the village boundary beside existing housing, farmland, recreation facilities, protected trees and a listed cottage.

“Biodiversity and ecology Significant harm to biodiversity can either be avoided or suitably mitigated. The statutory requirement of BNG could, in principle, be secured by condition and/or legal agreement. Impact on trees Significant harm to protected trees can either be avoided or suitably mitigated. Residential amenity The impact on neighbouring amenity has been designed to not cause any adverse impacts.”

“There are no designated heritage assets on the site, but the Grade II listed building of Castle Cottage adjoins to the SE corner of the site. The boundary of the Okeford Fitzpaine Conservation Area lies some 150m south of the site at closest points. The Scheduled Monument (SM) of ‘Deserted medieval village at Darknoll Farm’ lies some 530m to the north west of the site and on slightly higher ground.”

Officer report

What residents and the parish said

Objections focused on infrastructure, traffic, flooding, public transport, village character, ecology, design and the cumulative effect of development.

“Summary of comments of objections (40): • Lack of or limited infrastructure to support development (education, medical); • Highway safety – increased traffic, visibility, speeding, lack of pavements; • Already unsold houses in village; • Foul drainage; • Parking issues;”

“Loss of ‘village’ character; • Harmful impact to setting of grade II listed building; • Should be a focus on brownfield sites; • No local jobs to support housing; • Lack of public transport services; • Light pollution; • Noise pollution; • Harm to ecology; • Quantum not in keeping with other developments in village; • Loss of greenbelt; • Loss of green space and agricultural land; • Harm to nucleated village layout character; • Impact upon setting of Dorset National…”

Officer report

Who spoke at the meeting

A local objector, a neighbour, the agent, a parish council representative and the ward councillor addressed the committee.

What members debated

Members questioned sustainability, school and medical capacity, transport safety, village character, housing need, design, financial benefits and community impacts.

“Members questions and comments • Members questioned how the development would support village viability, given the lack of key services such as a school, shop, medical facilities and bus services. • Concerns were raised about whether the village had the infrastructure to support a significant population increase and about primary school capacity, especially with 40% affordable housing potentially attracting young families.”

“Safety concerns were raised and included: Narrow one-person footpaths, unsafe routes for children walking to school or bus stops, road widths, adoption, and management uncertainties, the need for warning lines, crossings, and signage • Members felt that the development would cause harm to the village’s character, being outside the settlement boundary and on a greenfield site. The quantum of development was seen as excessive, effectively doubling the size of the village.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused permission, finding the development unsustainable and harmful to the character and appearance of the village edge.

“The site lies outside the settlement boundary for Okeford Fitzpaine and as such is located within the open countryside. The proposed development would not represent a type of development that would be appropriate in the countryside or otherwise have a demonstrable overriding need for a countryside location and would lack safe and convenient access to a sufficient range of services to meet the day- to day needs of the occupiers of the dwellings.”

“The development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area through the quantum of development proposed and its urbanising effect on this edge of settlement location. This would be contrary to Policies 4 and 24 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (2016), and the National Planning Policy Framework.”

Minutes