Case Reference: 3265743

Appeal Decision
Inquiry (Virtual) Held on 27 to 29 April and 21 to 22 September 2021
Site visit made on 23 September 2021
by Richard Aston BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12 November 2021
Appeal Ref: APP/D1265/W/20/3265743
Land South of Lower Road, Stalbridge, Dorset
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990
against a failure to give notice within the prescribed period of a decision on an
application for outline planning permission.
• The appeal is made by [APPELLANT] against Dorset Council.
• The application Ref 2/2020/0406/OUT, is dated 19 March 2020.
• The development proposed is described as ‘outline planning application for the erection
of up to 114 dwellings, up to 2,000 sqm of employment space (use class b1, with up to
one use class a1 unit), vehicular access points and associated works.
Decision
1. The appeal is allowed, and outline planning permission is granted for
development described as ‘Develop land by the erection of up to 114 No.
dwellings and up to 2,000 square metres of employment space (for Business
use (Class B1), with up to 1 No. Retail (Class A1) unit). Form vehicular and
pedestrian access, form public open space, and carry out associated works.
(Outline application to determine access)’ at Land South of Lower Road,
Stalbridge, Dorset in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref
2/2020/0406/OUT, dated 19 March 2020, subject to the conditions set out in
the attached Schedule.
Application for costs
2. An application for costs was made in writing by [APPELLANT] against
Dorset Council. This application is the subject of a separate Decision.
Procedural Matters
3. The application was submitted in outline, with only access to be considered and
I have dealt with the appeal on that basis. A number of Parameter Plans were
submitted for approval and a ‘Concept Masterplan’ (‘the CM’) is marked
‘Preliminary’. I have determined the appeal on the basis that the CM shows
only one option for the layout of the development applied for.
4. The appeal results from the Council’s failure to determine the planning
application within the statutory period. Had it been able to do so the Council
confirmed it would have refused the proposal on the grounds of it being in an
unsustainable location, reliant on private vehicle trips and with no overriding
need for it to be located there. Further, that the level of development would be
out of keeping with the prevailing character of existing and planned
development which surrounds the appeal site.
5. The Inquiry was adjourned on 29 April 2021 so effects on the Rooksmoor
Special Area of Conservation (‘the SAC’) and protected species could be further
considered. Consequently, a number of additional submissions were received
prior to, during and after the Inquiry. I was satisfied that in all cases the
material was directly relevant to and necessary for my decision and all were
given opportunities to comment. There would be no prejudice to any party or
person from my consideration of those documents and I have taken them into
account.
6. The day before the Inquiry opened an amended Parameter (‘PP’) and other
associated plans were submitted by the appellant. The PP included a reduction
in the amount of employment floorspace, an increase the amount of open
space along with the retention of a central hedgerow with associated corridor of
open space. The PP is seen in association with the CM which must demonstrate
to me that an acceptable scheme at the proposed densities is likely to be
achievable on the site at the detailed stage.
7. Whilst amendments to a scheme even at an outline stage, might be thought to
be of little significance, in some cases even minor changes can materially alter
the nature of a scheme. Having regard to the so called Wheatcroft principles
and the ‘Procedural Guide – Planning Appeals – England’ (‘the guidance’) I
concluded that the amended scheme would be significantly different to that
determined by the Council.
8. In accepting the amendments, it could have deprived those who were entitled
to be consulted of the opportunity to make any representations to me that,
given the nature and extent of the changes proposed, they may have wanted
to make on the application as amended. Compliance with the guidance is the
best way to ensure no-one is disadvantaged through the appeal process and on
hearing my decision the appellant withdrew the PP from the Inquiry. I have
therefore determined the appeal on the same basis as the Council would have,
as set out in the application.
9. I allowed additional time after closing for the completed Section 106 legal
agreement to be submitted1. That agreement secures contributions and
measures for 40% affordable housing, healthcare, ecological mitigation, Travel
Plan and Travel Voucher, education, libraries, pedestrian/cycleway connectivity,
community facilities, play and open space, pre-school, a local nature reserve,
and rights of way including the North Dorset Trailway Strategic Project.
10. The Council’s CIL compliance statement sets out the detailed background and
justification for each of the obligations. I am satisfied that the provisions of the
submitted agreement would meet the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the CIL
Regulations 2010 (as amended) and the tests in the National Planning Policy
Framework (‘the Framework’) and I have taken them into account.
1 Dated 1 October 2021.
11. The description of development in the banner heading above has been taken
from the application form. A different description however is provided on the
appeal form which is more specific and which the appellant agreed with the
Council. The Council dealt with the proposal on that basis and so have I, using
the amended description in the formal decision.
Main Issues
12. Given the above, the main issues in this appeal are:
• Whether the proposed development would provide a suitable site for
housing, having regard to local planning policies that seek to manage the
location of new development, access to services and facilities and
accessibility by a range of modes of transport.
• The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the appeal
site and area.
• If harm and conflict with the development plan is identified, whether this
would be outweighed by other material considerations.
Reasons
Suitable site
Planning policy context
13. The spatial strategy set out within the North Dorset Local Plan Part 1 (‘the LP’)
seeks to focus development towards 4 main towns of Blandford, Gillingham,
Shaftesbury and Sturminster. Beyond those towns, Policies 2 and 20 focus
growth towards 18 of the larger villages, including Stalbridge. At Stalbridge and
all the District’s villages the focus is on meeting local rather than strategic
needs, and outside of these areas countryside policies apply.
14. Development is to be strictly controlled unless it is required to enable essential
rural needs to be met. Policy 20 further sets out that in the countryside,
development will only be permitted if it is a type appropriate in the countryside,
as set out in the relevant policies of the plan; or, for any other type of
development, if it can be demonstrated that there is an ‘overriding need’ for it
to be in the countryside.
15. Policy 6, which guides housing distribution, indicates that during the plan
period at least 825 dwellings will be provided in the countryside including in
Stalbridge and the villages. The supporting text to Policy H6 confirms that the
overall level of housing in the countryside will be the cumulative number of
new homes that have been delivered to meet local and essential rural needs as
defined by neighbourhood plans, rural exception sites and the functional need
for rural workers’ dwellings.
16. Significant Inquiry time was taken up on issues of local housing need and self-
containment of the settlements but by the close of the Inquiry the appellant
had accepted that the proposal would be in conflict with these policies, and that
the proposal would conflict with the development plan, as a whole2.
17. The appeal site is located outside of the settlement boundary of Stalbridge and
is in the countryside for planning purposes. It is not a type of development
identified in the LP as appropriate in the countryside and I agree with that
position. Ultimately the appellant’s contention is that the LP policies and its
settlement boundaries from 2003, are out of date. Further, that even if harm is
identified, it is outweighed by other considerations, notably that there is a clear
need for both market and affordable housing in the context of a 3.3-year
housing land supply, amongst other things and along with other benefits.
18. The supply position means that the policies which are the most important for
determining this appeal are out-of-date. Consequently, paragraph 11(d)(ii)
requires that permission be granted unless any adverse impacts would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed the
policies in the Framework, taken as a whole.
19. The Framework is a material consideration, but it does not replace the
statutory presumption of the development plan. Existing policy should also not
be considered out of date simply because they were adopted prior to the
publication of the Framework. The fact that a particular development plan
policy may be chronologically old is, in itself, irrelevant for the purposes of
assessing consistency with the Framework and the weight to be attached to
any conflicts with it.
20. The Council’s evidence is that the spatial strategy in the LP is consistent insofar
as it seeks to direct development to sustainable locations to minimise the need
to travel, create sustainable communities rather than commuter towns/villages
and address the causes and effects of climate change. These are therefore
important considerations in assessing the level of harm and conflict and are
matters to which I now turn.
Services, facilities and accessibility
21. Stalbridge is in a different category to the main towns, indicative of the
assessment of its accessibility and sustainability in 2016. It lacks certain
facilities such as a bank, indoor leisure facilities and restaurants but I observed
a high-quality supermarket in the centre, selling an array of day-to-day goods
and provisions along with other non-food household and pet items. The
supermarket also contained a café serving hot food and drinks and open 7 days
of the week. The High Street contained a Butchers, Post Office, Opticians,
Barbers, Cycle shop and a modest number of small-scale retail and beauty
enterprises. I also saw office accommodation, 3 hot food takeaways, 2 public
houses and a petrol/service station.
22. Stalbridge has its own primary school, village hall and ecclesiastical
institutions. I saw advertisements throughout Stalbridge for community events,
large scale leisure clubs and societies hosting local events. Superfast
Broadband appears to be available and there was a community shop and social
club. All of these would be within reasonable walking distance from the appeal
2 Mr. Kendrick in XX.
site along dedicated footways. Existing employment opportunities on the
eastern periphery and the Henstridge Marsh employment site would also be
within an acceptable walking and cycling distance albeit only a small number of
residents may choose to do so.
23. Stalbridge is surrounded by rural countryside containing other smaller villages,
hamlets, and a range of agricultural and employment uses, acting as a local
service centre in conjunction with those neighbouring settlements. This is
recognised in the LP3 where the denser settlement pattern in the Blackmore
Vale means that the rural hinterlands of the towns are relatively small and, in
general terms, most of the population live in relatively close proximity to a
range of services.
24. Bus stops are close to the appeal site on Lower Road providing access to a bus
service limited to every 2 hours on weekdays, once on a Saturday and with no
service on a Sunday. Journey times to much larger centres of Sturminster
Newton and Yeovil would take c. 30 and 45 minutes. Templecombe station is a
30-minute bus journey away or approximately 4 miles on a straight but unlit
rural road providing access to the London to Plymouth railway line. Separate
provision is made for secondary school children via a dedicated bus service.
25. There are opportunities for pedestrians and cyclists via the existing network of
rights of way and the rural road network. I accept that cycling for longer routes
may only appeal to experienced and enthusiastic cyclists, and that such a
journey may not appeal in inclement weather. Secure cycle spaces are
provided at the railway station and it could not be said to be a wholly
unattractive option for existing or future residents. Even if residents drove to
the station, taking the train for the latter part of their journey would remain a
sustainable choice of travel.
26. A contribution toward a connection to the North Dorset Trailway is also secured
in the legal agreement, with an enhancement of the exist cycle path that runs
from Blandford Forum to Sturminster Newton and its extension to Stalbridge
and the station. This would improve rural connectivity.
27. The proposal includes a Framework Travel Plan with a commitment for a
£300 travel voucher per house to spend on public transport or cycle equipment.
This would be a tangible incentive and sustainable travel benefit. Because of
the long period of implementation and monitoring4, I consider the Travel Plans
could realistically achieve aims, amongst other things, of encouraging a modal
shift to more sustainable travel options. Electric vehicle charging points could
be secured by condition and although only a benefit to those that have such
vehicles, the infrastructure is constantly improving, and this could encourage
electric vehicle purchases.
28. For secondary schools, employment, leisure and shopping, many residents will
be required to travel to larger settlements and therefore, there would be
additional reliance on the private car. Vehicle trips are likely to be relatively
short and this is the case with any new residential development and normal for
a rural settlement where private car ownership is likely to be high. Indeed, the
3 CD26 p. 12, para 2.25.
4 For 5 years plus from 50% occupation.
Framework recognises that opportunities to maximise sustainable transport
solutions will vary between urban and rural areas and each dwelling is likely to
have a car parking space associated with it.
29. The effects of the reliance on the private car would be tempered by my findings
in terms of the services and facilities to be found in Stalbridge and the size of
the development. The day-to-day reality would be that residents could shop
and access a range of facilities within Stalbridge, secondary school age children
could utilise public transport and for the elderly and those who do not drive,
access to a limited rural bus service. Commuters would have reasonable
opportunities to access a mainline railway station both by cycle, bus, and a
short vehicle journey.
30. My findings may differ from other Inspectors, including a colleague in the most
recent appeal decision at Westlake in March 20215 for up to 90 dwellings. In
that appeal the Inspector considered future occupants of the development
would travel further afield. I have also found that to a degree, but each
decision maker is faced with making a decision on its own merits at a particular
point in time.
31. The findings of the Inspector in the Barrow Hill appeal6 in 2019 also identified a
proposal for up to 98 dwellings on the western periphery of Stalbridge ‘would
be conveniently located for services and facilities’7 demonstrating the degree of
subjectivity involved. I also do not have the evidence to compare what was
before those Inspector and nor were our observations made at the same point
in time. Having held an Inquiry visited Stalbridge and the North Dorset area
much more recently I have formed my own view.
32. Climate change is a real and urgent issue, and the government sets high
targets for reductions in emissions. Insofar as the development plan strategy is
concerned, there would be a range of services and facilities to meet a
significant number of day-to-day needs and minimising travel, but there would
also be some moderate environmental harm from resultant greenhouse gas
emissions.
33. The site is in an area where the LP only allows growth to meet local needs and
being outside the boundary of the settlement with some reliance on private
vehicle trips, I agree with the parties that it should not be regarded as being a
suitable site for housing for the purposes of Policies 2, 3, 6 and 20 of the LP
and it would conflict with the development plan, as a whole.
34. A further central plank of the strategy that the Council contends is that it
recognises the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and this is an
issue to which I now turn.
Character and appearance
35. The appeal site lies outside but abutting the periphery of the town in an
agrarian landscape within the Blackmoor Vale. It is a generally flat area of
agricultural land set behind high hedgerows that when I visited the site,
5 PINS ref: APP/D1265/W/20/3262267.
6 PINS ref: APP/N1215/W/18/3203865.
7 Paragraph 25 of App/N1215/W/18/3203865.
visually contained the entire site on the southern approach along Lower Road.
There are a few trees and hedgerows around the site boundaries and a central
hedgerow runs through part of the site.
36. The Council’s objection relates to more localised effects on the setting of
Stalbridge as well as concerns regarding the density, design, and future layout
of the proposal being able to be satisfactorily accommodated. This included
concerns about the potential loss of the central hedgerow within the appeal site
and led to the submission of amended plans which I declined to determine.
37. Dealing with the density, design, and layout first, at this outline stage the
question I must address is not whether any illustrative parameter or CM plan
itself shows an acceptable detailed layout and design because those matters
are reserved. Along with the submitted information are they sufficient to show
that an acceptable scheme of up to 114 dwellings with 2,000 square metres of
employment space, parking, access roads, gardens, and open space at the
density range of 30-37 dwellings per hectare is likely to be achievable on the
site at the Reserved Matters stage.
38. I see no reason why the employment area could not be located in the northern
tip of the site, comparable to the employment, light industrial and office uses in
proximity to residential built form along the existing High Street and
commensurate with the historic pattern, grain, and development of this rural
settlement.
39. They could be designed to be of a domestic scale and with no detailed evidence
to the contrary, the parking, loading, and turning areas are entirely matters for
the detailed design stage. It is also a proposal for ‘up to’ the quantum of
floorspace applied for and ultimately if achievement of a high-quality layout
comes at the expense of a reduction in the amount of floorspace or units, that
will be a judgment for the Council to make at that point.
40. Although concerned that there would be insufficient space for street trees, long
avenues of street trees did not appear a characteristic of the town.
Commensurate with the scale of development there are opportunities for
specimen mature trees to be planted both in the internal streets, in rear
gardens and along the boundaries. The Council accepts there is little guidance
on this matter but ultimately, if a reduction in the number of units is required
to accommodate additional trees that is a matter which could be considered by
the appellant at the detailed design stage and resolved between the parties, as
necessary.
41. The central hedgerow is a landscape feature, but the undisputed findings of the
amended Biodiversity plan are that it is of low ecological value. It does
contribute to character, as do all hedgerows but it is not the only hedgerow and
the Council placed undue importance on its value and significance. Significant
boundary hedgerows would remain, and it is entirely feasible that at the
Reserved Matters stage the Council could negotiate its retention and inclusion
in any future scheme.
42. There is an opportunity here for the built form to be softened by the approach
to providing public open space and the attenuation area that could extend
along the entire length of the existing southern and western boundaries. A
sufficient landscaped buffer could also be provided to separate the employment
and residential areas along with proportionate space at the boundaries.
43. As part of any future detailed scheme, it will be critical that development along
the south eastern and eastern boundaries is designed with appropriate patterns
and scale of development to allow for sufficient space between the buildings
and in order to reflect the historic pattern and variation in built form that I
observed. Significant additional planting will be required in the open spaces,
play area, back gardens, and boundaries which, over time would allow the
housing to be seen and set within a landscaped rural context.
44. The parties do not dispute that the proposed quantum could be physically
accommodated on the site and subject to the above, the proposal would not
result in an overly dense or intensively developed scheme that would be out of
keeping. On the contrary, the appellant’s solution in the form of the CM
demonstrates to me that it is one option that subject to further refinements
and the details, appears soundly based on the constraints and opportunities of
the site and area.
45. Although not every landscape feature may be capable of being accommodated
and not every design ambition realised, I see no reason why it could not be
designed to deliver a high quality, design led housing development. Again, the
Council could also refuse to approve the details if they consider it would not be.
To my mind, this quantum would be far less challenging to achieve than the
estimated 150 units as part of any STAL5 proposed housing allocation that may
come forward in the emerging local plan on this site in the future.
46. Turning to wider effects, the immediate surroundings of the site are of
significance to this issue, and I observed to the south lies an agrarian
landscape with farms, fields and rural enterprises and industries but the north
of the site on the opposite side of Lower Road lies traditional and contemporary
residential development for 120 homes under construction8 (‘the Bovis
development’).
47. To the immediate west in between the site and Thornhill Road a housing
development for 60 dwellings is under construction9 (the Sovereign
development’). I also saw a variety of residential dwelling types, sizes and
ranging from various periods in the peripheral streets and roads such as Jarvis
Way, Bibberne Road, and properties along Lower Road. The density of the
proposal at c.32 dwellings per hectare (‘dph’) would be between the 30 dph of
the Bovis scheme and the 37 dph of the Sovereign scheme and not excessive in
quantitative terms.
48. Once the Bovis development is completed the length of the appeal site facing
Lower Road will lie entirely opposite residential built form, of varying styles,
sizes, height, and forms. To the west the Sovereign scheme would extend to
roughly half of the appeal sites frontage with the Public Right of Way (‘Prow’)
that runs along the site’s western boundary and contain 2 storey-built form.
8 LPA ref: 2/2017/0741/OUT.
9 LPA ref: 2/2017/1095/OUT.
49. The site’s character as an open rural field would be affected by the introduction
up to 114 houses, together with roads, parking areas, amenity spaces and
gardens. There would also be employment units and general comings and
goings along with associated vehicular activity. Features of this type are
primarily associated with built suburban or urban environments rather than
with the countryside, but peripheral suburban style development could not be
said to be uncharacteristic of the southern part of Stalbridge.
50. The extent of any harm would be significantly reduced by the relationship of
the site to the development under construction on both sides. A large open
field would still exist to the south of the appeal site and although ultimately
extended, a verdant, rural agrarian setting on the southern part of the town
could be retained. I am therefore not persuaded that the development would
lead to a total loss of key features and elements that contribute towards the
rural setting of Stalbridge.
51. Visually, the experience of adverse visual effects is limited to individual houses
which back, or will back, onto the site, Lower Road, and a limited number of
wider viewpoints. Given the established boundary vegetation the site is well
contained and there are virtually no views into the site for significant periods of
the year.
52. A Prow exists abutting the western boundary which has a rural quality and
value. The hedge is 2-3 metres tall for the entire length and this value will be
significantly altered once the Sovereign development is complete. The height of
the houses on the appeal site would extend above the hedge but the Bovis and
Sovereign developments under construction are more visible in the wider area
with the rooftops of housing on the Bovis site prominently evident on the
approach over the bridge on Lower Road.
53. A varied rural roofscape could be achieved with attractive vernacular buildings
and boundary hedgerows grown and retained at a significant height, supported
by additional planting in rear gardens and the boundaries. In combination with
careful consideration of the disposition of the buildings and spaces on the site,
the upper storeys of dwellings and the development would not be visually
overly dominant. It would not be as detrimental to the visual interests of its
surroundings as the Council suggests, including from the agreed wider
viewpoints I visited.
54. I do not share the appellant’s view that the objection on these grounds is
without substance, built form would inevitably result in a fundamental change
to the character of the landscape, from open countryside to a suburban form.
Whilst change does not necessarily equate to harm, the loss of an open and
undeveloped rural field is generally regarded as adverse in landscape terms.
55. However, national, and local planning policy requires development to be high
quality, beautiful and well designed, and I have no reason to doubt that the
detailed design could not achieve this. The development could be designed
sympathetically, having regard to the edge of village setting and the rural
vernacular. The requirements of Policies 7 and 24 of the LP in terms of design
and layout are capable of being satisfied and at this outline stage there would
be no conflict with those policies insofar as they require design principles to be
considered to enable good design and that ultimately design should improve
the character of and quality of an area.
56. Although the Council’s reason also cites Policies 2, 6 and 20 my understanding
is that this is primarily in the context of the aims and objectives of the strategy
and the weight to be given in this regard to which I return to in the planning
balance below. A failure to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty is not
borne out in the appellant’s approach to how this site could be developed and
its likely character and visual effects. Subject to conditions, on balance the
proposal would result in moderate harm to the character and appearance of the
appeal site and area, reducing over time as landscaping matures.
Other Considerations and Matters
The Rooksmoor SAC
57. The provisions of Regulation 63 of The Conservation of Habitats and Species
Regulations 2017 (as amended) require that prior to deciding whether to grant
planning permission for development which is likely to have a significant effect
on a European Site, either individually or in combination with other
developments, then the competent authority must make an appropriate
assessment of the implications for the European site. Consent should only be
granted if there are no adverse effects on the integrity of the site unless other
legal tests have been met.
58. Raised as part of the emerging local plan process, effects on air quality on the
SAC of a stretch of the A357 and A3030 on Lydlinch Common required further
work to be carried out that necessitated an adjournment in the Inquiry. Natural
England advised that likely significant effects could be screened out on the
basis that the Annual Average Daily Traffic (‘AADT’) at these locations is not
expected to exceed the 1000 threshold.
59. The methodology for assessment was agreed with NE and the relevant
statement of common ground on this matter confirms this threshold would not
be exceeded. Therefore ‘a likely significant effect can be ruled out and no
further assessment will be required’10. Having considered the additional
evidence, I agree and on this basis the proposal will not have any adverse
effects on the integrity of a European site, either alone or in combination with
other plans or projects drawn to my attention. It would comply with the
provisions of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 as
amended and local and national planning policy insofar as they seek to secure
the long-term protection of such areas and mitigate any harmful impacts to
them.
Protected species and Stalbridge Local Nature Reserve
60. The presence of protected species is a material consideration when a
development proposal is being considered which would be likely to result in
harm to the species or its habitat. Additional work undertaken during the
adjournment in respect of additional Bat, Hazel Dormice and Great Crested
Newt surveys resulted in an updated Ecological Impact Assessment.
10 Natural England email to Dorset Council dated 1 April 2021.
61. The updated assessment sets out a very low likelihood of presence for those
species and that it was not an important foraging route for bats. The
assessment also confirms that none if the hedgerows are identified as being
ecologically important or species rich as they support fewer than 5 species. The
report also confirms a 10% Biodiversity gain because 1.23 hectares would be
provided as species rich grassland, or other habitats of an equivalent value
62. The appellant has addressed concerns from Dorset’s Natural Environment Team
and the updated Biodiversity Plan contains detailed recommendations for
mitigation and compensation. Compliance with that plan would be secured by
condition and contributions towards the Local Nature Reserve(s) in the form of
enhancements to the rights of way network would mitigate against additional
recreational pressures. This would be in accordance with Policy 15 of the LP
and the proposal would not result in loss or harm to protected species or to
locally designated nature reserves.
Third party representations
63. I have had regard to the concerns of third parties but no substantive evidence
of any drainage or further protected species matters was put before me that
could not be adequately resolved by the suggested conditions. Subject to
conditions there are no technical flood risk or drainage constraints to
developing the site and no objections were received from the relevant statutory
consultees. Subject to considerations of space between buildings, appearance
and landscaping adequate separation distances could be achieved and the
proximity of the houses to other residential properties on the periphery should
not be overbearing or result in material harm to the outlook of neighbouring
occupiers.
64. In terms of highway safety, the relevant highway authority does not object and
there is no technical highways evidence before me to support either the
suggestion that the surrounding roads have a capacity problem or that highway
safety would be compromised because of the proposal. Connectivity to rights of
way would be improved around Stalbridge and having viewed the surroundings
both during the early and late morning I do not consider the proposal would
result in harm to highway safety.
65. There is also nothing substantive from the relevant providers that suggests
local services and facilities would be placed under unacceptable pressure that
would not be mitigated by the combination of suggested conditions and
obligations before me, including significant financial contributions towards
community, leisure, and sports to be spent in the town.
66. The view that some infrastructure contributions for education and healthcare
have not been forthcoming, resulting in the local community shouldering the
burden and having to accept the consequences of the developments, is also not
supported by the evidence before me. Contributions have been identified,
sought, secured, and justified but issues in relation to how those monies are
spent are not matters before me to address as part of this particular appeal.
67. I have also carefully considered the representations made by Stalbridge Town
Council and at the Inquiry by the local ward member for Stalbridge and
Marnhull and the Council’s Portfolio holder for Housing and Community Safety.
Ultimately, I have found conflict was a whole, partially agreeing with those
views on local need and policy conflict. However, I have also determined that
the effects would not be as great as contended and allowed the appeal due to
other material considerations.
68. My attention has been drawn to concerns over the perceived erosion of the
reasons why this part of Dorset was chosen by some for retirement. The
proposal would allow for others to settle, including those in need of affordable
housing. This would add positively to the mix and overall diversity of the
community in an area of generally high housing demand.
69. I acknowledge concerns regarding the mix of houses and that flexibility could
be needed accommodate changes in demographics. This is capable of being
addressed at the detailed stage, including consideration of whether properties
for the elderly are required along with the size and type of dwellings. The effect
on existing property values has no bearing on the planning merits of this
appeal. Thus, none of these other considerations, on their own or in
combination, alter my view to allow the appeal.
Employment
70. The Council have drawn my attention to Policy 11 of the LP, but it is not cited
in the suggested reason for refusal. It was clarified at the Inquiry that this
matter related to the weight to be given to the employment floorspace and that
it should be reduced because there is no local need, being purely speculative.
However, by the close of the Inquiry the Council still contended there is conflict
with the policy.
71. I saw that Stalbridge is served by a number of employments uses and the
appellant appears to have identified an end user and negotiated a condition
with the Council to ensure it is delivered. Even if agreeing there is no local need
and employment needs will be reviewed as part of the emerging plan, the
Council also argued that Stalbridge is less sustainable because of fewer
employment opportunities.
72. The Council’s own economic regeneration team has stated there has always
been a demand for units in this area. It would be the subject of reserved
matters approval and include a small café retail floorspace which would add to
the vitality of the settlement. It could be designed and secured by conditions to
have no adverse effects on living conditions.
73. In association with recent growth, whilst the proposal may not strictly adhere
to the policy requirements, I fail to see how such additional floorspace would
cause any material harm or conflicts that should be weighed as an adverse
impact. As put by the Council it would be a ‘good thing’11 and I agree, providing
some small-scale employment opportunities within a rural town, reducing the
need to travel, albeit by a very small degree and assisting with vitality from the
creation of investment and jobs. It would be a modest positive benefit given
the scale and any conflict with the strategy in Policy 11 is given limited weight.
11 JW in XX.
Appeal decisions
74. The parties both rely heavily on a number of appeal decisions, with over
20 submitted by the Council including recent decisions within Stalbridge, Dorset
and beyond. As with most appeals I found the inclusions on both sides to be
Cherry picked to suit a particular stance. Little relevance or support can be
drawn from a decision in a different administrative area and not undertaken in
accordance with this LP, other than in general terms or, where a different
settlement in Dorset is being considered because of the degree of subjectivity
and site-specific considerations involved.
75. In those that are within Stalbridge, both the Barrow Hill decision in 2019 and
Land west of Westlake in 2021 involved heritage harms and greater landscape
effects, identified as unacceptably harmful and significant adverse in the latter.
Those Inspectors will also have heard their own evidence and one was decided
following a hearing and one under written representations.
76. Whilst no doubt some similarities and differences can always be drawn, I have
not found the same nature or degree of harm as those Inspectors and I have
held a Public Inquiry with the formal presentation and examination of evidence.
Such proposals are also subject to various site-specific and bespoke
considerations and judgments and each case must be considered on its own
merits. I do not consider they or the plethora of other decisions put before me
are therefore directly comparable to the proposal before me and they do not
alter my decision to allow the appeal.
Conditions
77. Following a round table discussion at the Inquiry a list of conditions was agreed
by the parties. I have considered them against the tests in the Framework and
the advice in the Planning Practice Guidance. I have made such amendments
as necessary to comply with those documents and in the interests of clarity,
precision, and simplicity. The appellant has confirmed acceptance of the pre-
commencement conditions.
78. I have attached conditions limiting the life of the planning permission and set
out the requirements for the submission of reserved matters in accordance with
the Act. To ensure the housing is delivered more quickly as intended by the
appellant the commencement condition has been amended to 1 year following
the date of approval of the reserved matters, the timescale for submission of
those has also been reduced to 2 years (1, 2 and 3).
79. A condition is required to ensure compliance with the approved plans for the
avoidance of doubt as this provides certainty (4). In the interests of highway
safety, the detailed highway layout is to be approved and visibility splays and
pedestrian/vehicular access points for the residential and commercial uses
implemented prior to occupation (5, 7, 8 and 9). To ensure the benefits of
employment land associated with the dwellings will be delivered a condition
requiring the western vehicular access onto Lower Road to serve the
commercial development (21).
80. Conditions requiring details of a scheme of electric charging points, Travel
Plans and provision of cycle parking are required in the interests of promoting
more sustainable modes of transport (6, 11, 12 and 23). However, to give the
Travel Plans some force I have amended the suggested condition to specify
objectives leaving the parties to agree the specific measures. I have agreed to
the appellant’s request for separate conditions of the commercial and
residential plans due to matters relating to the different timings of delivery.
81. A Construction Traffic Management Plan (10) is necessary to be agreed in the
interests of highway safety and living conditions although I have amended it to
avoid repetition with other conditions and removed some details, I consider
unnecessary. To prevent flooding, a condition is necessary to require the
approval and implementation of a Sustainable Urban Drainage System, along
with a maintenance plan (13 and 14) and foul water drainage (22).
82. Conditions for landscape and construction environmental management plans
and compliance with the updated Biodiversity Plan are necessary to protect and
enhance biodiversity (15, 16 and 17). An external lighting scheme to be agreed
is necessary in the interests of character and appearance and ecology (18). No
more than 280 square metres of the employment space is to be used as retail
to protect the vitality and viability of the existing retail offer in the town (19).
Details of any future extraction and filtration equipment, if used for food
preparation is also necessary to protect the living conditions of adjoining
occupiers (20).
83. Conditions 5, 13, 14, 16, 17 and 22 are conditions precedent but I am satisfied
that they are fundamental to the development to ensure that it does not occur
until such matters are resolved, in the interests of highway safety, flood risk,
waste disposal and ecology.
Planning balance and conclusion
The adverse impacts
84. The appellant’s contention that the policies are out of date, at first, was almost
to the point of suggesting they were irrelevant with little weight to be afforded
to them12. Here, the policies do not set out any blanket restrictions on
development and allow for development in the countryside where it meets rural
needs, including supporting housing needs, mitigating climate change,
supporting economic development and infrastructure.
85. Collectively they also recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of this part of
Dorset, and I consider there is still a rationale for development boundaries to
protect the countryside while focusing growth within designated settlements,
accepting that on their merits, applications for housing have been approved
outside of these boundaries.
86. It is not as simple to my mind as the appellant suggests that the policies have
not promoted sustainable development because of the lack of supply. The
Council is no doubt doing its best to assist in delivering housing schemes,
including affordable housing and larger urban extensions. They have also
12 MK PoE paragraph 3.43.
demonstrated flexibility partly by their decisions to allow development outside
settlement boundaries, but some matters are clearly beyond their control.
87. Accordingly, I find the approach of such a strategy to be broadly consistent
with the Framework and still of significance. However, the key consideration for
me in this appeal is the weight to be given to the adverse impacts, that is the
harm and the conflicts with the policies and the benefits in the so called ‘tilted’
balancing exercise I must undertake.
88. The emerging local plan will be subject to consultation and examination with an
adoption target of April 2023 and a plan period to 2038. It is agreed therefore
to be of limited weight. Even in agreeing and accepting the need for local
involvement during that process and that other assessments may be required
to inform that, the Council’s own evidence base13 indicates Stalbridge will be
classified as a ‘Town and other main settlement’ with ‘modest’ expansion, and
27% growth in such a town could reasonably described that way. I also note
that the emerging strategy for the town would equate to a 50% increase14 if all
available sites are progressed, including the appeal site as STAL5 and the
Council’s own officers give moderate weight to the evidence base.
89. Overall, I have identified moderate environmental harms in terms of reliance
on the private car, character and appearance and even lesser conflict with the
economic development strategy. For the reasons set out above there would be
no resultant significant distortion of the adopted plan strategy in this location
from this proposal. Having regard to my findings in terms of the main issues,
the underlying laudable objectives of the strategy and policies and in the
context of a 3.3-year supply, I give the harms and conflicts with the policies
moderate weight.
The benefits
90. Significant time was taken in relation to the parties’ assessments of housing
need, and I found much of it on both sides to be contrived to reach a particular
outcome. Even if this proposal results in more dwellings than envisaged during
the plan period and there is no local need, the overall supply is still significantly
short, and the situation has worsened to be below the 4 years supply in April
201915. Recent delivery has been poor, as demonstrated by a 59% score in the
Housing Delivery Test 2020.
91. Up to 114 dwellings, or just below that accounting for any reductions at the
reserved matters stage, would make a valuable and significant contribution
towards addressing the shortfall. House prices have risen in the area and the
proposal would be valuable in meeting the government's objectives of
significantly boosting the supply of homes. The development is also likely to be
brought forward relatively quickly given the reduced time agreed by the
appellant to submit the reserved matters.
92. The number of houses under Policy 6 of the LP has nearly doubled but the
number is not a cap, referred to as being ‘at least’. There may well be a tipping
point for this town, but this proposal is not it and despite claims of it being
13 CD 28 Consultation January 2021.
14 Paragraph 32.2.2 – Options Consultation.
15 Officer report to committee page 12.
‘top-heavy’ with housing and the services and facilities not keeping pace, the
range of services and facilities would be satisfactory. The proposal would also
be on land that is not the Best and Most versatile agricultural land in policy
terms.
93. Turning to affordable housing, I found much of the evidence was confusing as
to its significance of what I found to be very marginal differences on study
areas, vacancy rates and uplifts. Adopting either the Council’s or the
Appellant’s (albeit disputed) study areas, there is a surplus in local affordable
housing over the 5-year period of between 5.8 and 9.4 units. A lack of local
need at this point however has to be balanced against a significant undersupply
in housing and there has been an overall failure to deliver the requisite amount
of affordable housing since 2011.
94. It may be policy compliant but the provision of 40% affordable units in
Stalbridge would help address the high level of general need for affordable
housing which exists across north Dorset and something described by the
Council’s relevant portfolio holder for housing and communities as ‘a desperate
need’16. It is a significant public benefit, allowing those who cannot afford to
buy or rent their own home and need assistance, to settle within this attractive
part of Dorset and in a relatively accessible rural town with a range of services
and facilities.
95. The Council referred to limited then moderate weight, the former being in
accordance with the approach of the Inspector in the Westlake appeal but in
that decision the Inspector also acknowledges a previous other Inspector gave
greater weight because different considerations applied. Even if the affordable
local needs of Stalbridge have been currently met there is a general and
pressing need across the former North Dorset area. To give the proposal
anything less than significant weight falls short in my view and overall, both
the provision of open market housing and affordable housing weigh
significantly in favour of the proposal.
96. There would be economic benefits of investment and construction jobs, albeit
these would be short term and the creation of a number of additional jobs from
the employment space. There would also be an increase in spending in the
local economy from future residents and additional support for local services
and facilities to expand. Along with the small retail space this would assist in
maintaining and enhancing the town’s vitality and viability and the economic
benefits carry modest weight.
97. Whilst primarily mitigation the enhanced connectivity to the trailway and cycle
routes would also result in a small social benefit to existing and future
residents. There would be some biodiversity gain, as secured in a
comprehensive Biodiversity Plan. This would be offset against the loss of the
open field and perhaps the central hedge, but both have a low ecological value
and the overall biodiversity benefits weigh a small amount in favour.
98. The development would generate Council Tax and New Homes Bonus receipts.
As the former is essentially a means for the Council to cover its costs arising
from an increased local population, and/or to mitigate development impacts
16 Cllr Graham Carr Jones statement received 27 April 2021.
upon local infrastructure, it attracts very little weight. There is no evidence
before me of a connection between the New Homes Bonus payments and the
development to enable it to be considered in accordance with the advice in the
Planning Practice Guidance. It therefore also carries very little weight.
99. Drawing everything together, paragraph 9 of the Framework explains that the
3 economic, social and environmental objectives of sustainable development
are not criteria against which every decision should be judged. Where
paragraph 11 d. ii) is in play the starting point is that permission should be
granted.
100. My findings in relation to the SAC means that the application of policies in
the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance does not
provide a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. This is not a
case where the presumption in favour of sustainable development is disapplied
by virtue of paragraph 11 d) i.
101. Housing is not the be all and end all but in this case I have found that the
harm and resultant conflicts would simply not be as significant as the Council
contends. In my judgment the adverse impacts would not significantly and
demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the
Framework, when taken as a whole. As such the proposal would be the
sustainable development for which Paragraph 11 d) ii. of the Framework
indicates a presumption in favour.
102. This is a material consideration which outweighs the harm and conflicts with
the development plan that I have identified and indicates to me that a decision
should be made other than in accordance with the development plan.
103. There are no other material considerations that indicate permission should
be withheld. I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed, and
outline planning permission granted subject to the conditions set out in the
attached Schedule.
Richard Aston
INSPECTOR
APPEARANCES
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Isabella Tafur, of Counsel instructed by Dorset Council
She called
Jo Witherden BSc (Hons) DipTP DipUD MRTPI Dorset Planning
John Hewitt BA DIPARCH ARB Hewitt Studios
Also present for the Council:
Nikki Taylor
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Satnaam Choongh, of Counsel instructed by [APPELLANT]
He called
Matthew Kendrick BA (Hons) MSc MRTPI Grass Roots Planning Ltd
Daffyd Rees BSc (Hons) MSc CIHT Vectos
Chris Broughton CNB Housing Insights
Jonathan Vernon Smith RIBA Urban Design Box
Also present for the appellant:
James Tizzard [APPELLANT]
Alex Heath Grassroots Planning Ltd
Catherine Tyrer Grassroots Planning Ltd
Coral Curtis Grassroots Planning Ltd
Interested persons
Cllr Graham Carr-Jones Dorset Council Ward member for
Stalbridge and Marnhull
Stuart Waite – Stalbridge Town Council
Robert Roden – Stalbridge Town Council
Nicci Brown Angela Jacobs
Emily Ramsay Jackie Ross
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE INQUIRY
Document Document name Submitted by
Number
Document 1 Statement of Common Ground Council
Document 2 Design Statement of Common Ground Appellant
Document 3 Amended alternative illustrative plans (not Appellant
accepted)
Document 4 Statement of Cllr Graham-Carr Jones
Document 5 Council’s opening statement Council
Document 6 Appellant’s opening statement Appellant
Document 7 Statement of Common Ground – Rooksmoor Appellant
SAC
Document 8 Urban Design Box Statement on street trees Appellant
Document 9 Statement of Common Ground – Protected Appellant
Species
Document 10 N PPF Update Statement Council
Document 11 Statement of Common Ground – 21 Council
September update
Document 12 Statement of Common Ground – Hous9ng Appellant
a nd table
Document 13 S talbridge Design Rebuttal Appellant
Document 14 CiL Compliance Schedule Council
Document 15 Closing submissions Appellant
Document 16 Correspondence on conditions
Document 17 Unsigned S106 Legal Agreement Appellant
Document 18 Appellant’s comments on condition 20 Appellant
Document 19 Closing submissions Council
Document 20 Grey Green Infrastructure note V2 August Council
2018
Document 21 Suggested site visit locations Council/Appellant
Document 22 Emails - Appellant’s agreement to condition Appellant and
21 and exchanges with Council Council
DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AFTER THE INQUIRY
Document 16 S106 correspondence emails Appellant/Council
Document 17 Signed S106 agreement dated 1 October Council/Appellant
2021
SCHEDULE
CONDITIONS
1. No part of the development hereby approved shall commence until details of all
reserved matters, including layout, appearance, scale, and landscaping have
been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
2. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than
the expiration of 1 year from the final approval of the reserved matters or, in
the case of approval on different dates, the final approval of the last such
matter to be approved.
3. An application for approval of any 'reserved matter' must be made not later
than the expiration of 2 years beginning with the date of this permission.
4. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the
following approved plans:
- Drawing No. 1001B, Site Boundary Plan;
- Drawing No. 194687-A02 Rev A, Proposed Pedestrian & Vehicular Access
(East) General Arrangement, Visibility Splays and Swept Path Analysis
(Large Refuse Vehicle); and
- Drawing No 194687-A01 Rev A, Proposed Pedestrian & Vehicular Access
(West) General Arrangement, Visibility Splays and Swept Path Analysis
(Large Refuse Vehicle).
5. Prior to the commencement of any works on site, details of the access,
geometric highway layout, turning and parking areas shall be submitted to and
agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be
carried-out and completed in accordance with the agreed details and maintained
in the approved form thereafter.
6. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling or commercial building hereby approved,
details of cycle parking facilities shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by
the local planning authority. The spaces shall be installed as approved prior to
the occupation of the building and shall be maintained and retained as such
thereafter.
7. Prior to occupation of any dwelling or commercial building hereby approved, the
visibility splay areas as shown on the submitted plans (refs: Drawing No
194687-A02 Rev A and Drawing No 194687-A01 Rev A) must be provided to a
level not exceeding 0.6 metres above the relative level of the adjacent
carriageway. The splay areas must thereafter be maintained and kept free from
all obstructions.
8. Prior to the occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the following works
must have been carried out and provided:
- The provision of a dedicated pedestrian access and a dropped kerb and
tactile paving crossing onto Lower Road at the north-western corner of
the site.
- The provision of pedestrian access points from the site onto Lower Road
and the public right of way that runs along the site’s southwestern
boundary.
- The vehicular access points from Lower Road to the development site, as
shown on the approved plans (Ref: Drawing No 399194687-A02 Rev A
and Drawing No 194687-A01 Rev A).
9. Prior to the occupation of any commercial building hereby approved, the
following works shall be carried out:
• The provision of a dedicated pedestrian access and a dropped kerb and
tactile paving crossing over onto Lower Road at the north-western corner of
the site.
• The provision of pedestrian access points from the site onto Lower Road and
the public right of way that runs along the site’s southwestern boundary.
• The western vehicular access point from Lower Road to the development
site, as shown on the approved plan (Ref: Drawing No 399194687-A01 Rev
A).
10.Prior to commencement of any works on site, a Construction Traffic
Management Plan (‘CTMP’) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
local planning authority. The CTMP shall include:
- construction vehicle details (number, size, type, and frequency of
movement)
- a programme of construction works and anticipated deliveries
timings of deliveries to avoid, where possible, peak traffic periods a
framework for managing abnormal loads contractors’ arrangements
(compound, storage, parking, turning, surfacing and drainage)
- wheel cleaning facilities vehicle cleaning facilities
- a scheme of appropriate signing of vehicle route to the site
- a route plan for all contractors and suppliers to be advised on
- temporary traffic management measures where necessary
Development shall take place in accordance with the approved CTMP.
11.Prior to the first occupation of the residential development hereby permitted,
the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the local planning
authority a Travel Plan, written in accordance with the aims and objectives of
the National Planning Policy Framework and based on the Framework Travel
Plan dated March 2020, which shall as a minimum:
(i) Raise awareness and promote sustainable transport modes for accessing
the site;
(ii) Reduce the numbers of trips generated by private motor vehicles;
(iii) Improve air quality through the reduction of carbon emissions and other
pollutants; and
(iv) Promote healthier and more active lifestyles to residents including
appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator.
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved
Travel Plan has been implemented. Within 6 calendar months of 50%
occupation of the development hereby permitted, a baseline travel survey shall
be carried out and the results submitted to the local planning authority in an
updated version of the Travel Plan. Thereafter on an annual basis for a period of
5 years a monitoring travel survey shall be carried out and submitted to the
local planning authority in a monitoring report. The survey shall confirm
whether or not the objectives of the Travel Plan have been achieved and shall
contain, where necessary, recommendations for amendments or improvements
to the Travel Plan.
12.Prior to the first occupation of the commercial development hereby permitted,
the applicant shall submit for the written approval of the local planning
authority a Travel Plan, written in accordance with the aims and objectives of
the National Planning Policy Framework and based on the Framework Travel
Plan dated March 2020, which shall:
(v) Raise awareness and promote sustainable transport modes for accessing
the site;
(vi) Reduce the numbers of trips generated by private motor vehicles;
(vii) Improve air quality through the reduction of carbon emissions and other
pollutants; and
(viii) Promote healthier and more active lifestyles to residents including
appointment of a Travel Plan Co-ordinator.
The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the approved
Travel Plan has been implemented. Within 6 calendar months of the occupation
of the development hereby permitted, a baseline travel survey shall be carried
out and the results submitted to the local planning authority in an updated
version of the Travel Plan. Thereafter on an annual basis for a period of 5 years
a monitoring travel survey shall be carried out and submitted to the local
planning authority in a monitoring report. The survey shall confirm whether or
not the objectives of the Travel Plan have been achieved and shall contain,
where necessary, recommendations for amendments or improvements to the
Travel Plan.
13.Prior to the commencement of any works on site, a surface water management
scheme for the site, based upon the hydrological and hydrogeological context of
the development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The surface water scheme thereby approved, shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details before the development is
completed.
14.Prior to commencement of any works on site, details of the maintenance &
management of both the surface water sustainable drainage scheme and any
receiving system shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The scheme shall be implemented and thereafter managed
and maintained in accordance with the approved details. These should include a
plan which covers the lifetime of the development, the arrangements for
adoption by any public body or statutory undertaker, or any other
arrangements to secure the operation of the surface water drainage scheme
throughout its lifetime.
15.The development hereby approved shall be completed in accordance with the
submitted Biodiversity Plan (‘BP’) (dated 6 September 2021) and any
subsequent reserved matters application(s) shall provide detail of the following
ecological enhancement measures:
- 10 bird nesting boxes (Schwegler 1B) to retained trees;
- 50% of residential dwellings to have built-in bird nesting features;
- The detailed landscape strategy to prescribe native species of local
provenance (This should include a range of species to provide berry and
fruits and those that provide a diverse structure and form);
- New native hedgerow planting incorporating standard native trees within
public open space and provided to replace loss of H1 by two-fold;
- Retained hedgerows to be subject to target bolster/enhancement planting to
increase species diversity;
- New hedgerows to include standard native trees with a minimum of 20m
between trees to allow for full crown development;
- New hedgerows to be subject to a minimum 2m buffer either side of the
hedge starting at the edge of the hedge (assuming mature width of 1.5m)
within residential zones with this increased to a minimum 5m buffer within
non-residential zones;
- Hedgehog friendly gravel boards / holes (10cm x 10cm) in garden fencing
between houses;
- Two bee bricks per dwelling;
- New wildlife pond to be designed in line with Natural England’s Great Crested
Newt Mitigation Guidelines;
- Two drainage attenuation features to be designed for the benefit of wildlife
and to hold an element of water throughout the year;
- Open space to be designed to accommodate a mosaic of new habitats to
provide enhanced habitat for a range of additional faunal groups, such as
herpetofauna and invertebrates;
- Management details of habitats for wildlife: hay meadow management
regime of species-rich grassland, cutting of new established hedgerows to
encourage wildlife.
16.Prior to commencement of any works on site, a Construction Environmental
Management Plan (‘CEMP’) shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the
location planning authority. As a minimum the CEMP shall include details of the
following:
- Measures to be adopted during construction works to avoid any adverse
impacts on the Stalbridge SNCI;
- In relation to retained habitats (hedgerows and trees) appropriate protective
fencing in line with BS42020: 2013 (Biodiversity: Code of Practice for
Planning and Development) and BS 5837: 2012 (Trees in Relation to Design,
Demolition and Construction – Recommendations);
- Specifically, for hedges, root protection zones would be safeguarded in line
with provisions under BS 5837:2012
- In relation to newly seeded species-rich grassland, the ground preparation to
be carried-out as required prior to seeding in line with the suppliers’
recommendations. Including the required removal of undesirable species
which may out-compete the grassland during establishment.;
- avoidance measures in relation to the potential presence of nesting birds,
Badgers, Hazel Dormice and Great Crested Newts as set out in Dorset
Council’s Great Crested Newt Licence Scheme Guidance Note.
Development shall take place in accordance with the approved CEMP.
17.Prior to commencement of any works on-site, a landscape and ecological
management plan (‘LEMP’) shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing
by, the local planning authority. The content of the LEMP shall have due regard
to the submitted Biodiversity Plan and include the following:
a) Description and evaluation of features existing and, or to be created and
managed.
b) Ecological trends and constraints on site that might influence management.
c) Aims and objectives of management as set out in the BP.
d) Appropriate management options for achieving aims and objectives.
e) Prescriptions for management actions.
f) Preparation of a work schedule (including an annual work plan capable of
being rolled forward over a 5-year period).
g) Details of the body or organization responsible for implementation of the
plan.
h) Ongoing monitoring and remedial measures.
The LEMP shall also include details of the legal and funding mechanism(s) by
which the long-term implementation of the plan will be secured by the
developer with the management body (or bodies) responsible for its delivery.
The LEMP shall also set out (where the results from monitoring show that
conservation aims and objectives of the LEMP are not being met) how
contingencies and/or remedial action will be identified, agreed,
and implemented so that the development still delivers the fully functioning
biodiversity objectives of the originally approved scheme.
Development shall take place in accordance with the approved LEMP and
adhered to for the lifetime of the development.
18.Prior to occupation of any building hereby approved a detailed lighting strategy
shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority and
shall be designed by a suitably qualified person and shall be in accordance with
the Bat Conservation Trust’s Guidance Note 08/18 (Bats and artificial lighting in
the UK). Development shall be carried out and maintained in accordance with
the approved details thereafter.
19. No more than 280sqm of the 2000 sqm of Class E employment space hereby
approved shall be used as retail space.
20.Before any relevant use hereby permitted begins, a scheme for the installation
of equipment to control the emission of fumes and smell from that premise,
including details of any noise levels, noise control and external ducting shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved scheme shall be fully implemented prior to the commencement of the
use. All equipment installed as part of the scheme shall at all times thereafter
be operated and maintained in accordance with the approved scheme and the
manufacturer's instructions.
21.Prior to occupation of any dwelling hereby approved, the western vehicular
access point from Lower Road to the development site, as shown on the
approved plan Drawing No 399194687-A01 Rev A, shall be constructed along
with the first 15 metres of the access road beyond, to base course level and
including services such as gas, electric, water and telecoms, to serve the
commercial development.
22.Prior to the commencement of development, details of foul water drainage for
the site shall be submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning
authority. None of the dwellings or commercial units hereby permitted shall be
occupied until the foul drainage works have been completed in accordance with
the submitted and approved details. The drainage shall thereafter be managed
and maintained in accordance with the approved details.
23.Prior to the first use or occupation of the development hereby permitted, a
scheme for the provision of active vehicular electric charging spaces and points
of passive provision for the integration of future charging points to serve the
development shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning
authority. The vehicular electric charging spaces shall be provided in accordance
with the approved details prior to the first use or occupation of the development
hereby permitted and retained as such thereafter.
----- end of conditions -----


Costs Decision
Inquiry (Virtual) Held on 27 to 29 April and 21 to 22 September 2021
Site visit made on 23 September 2021
by Richard Aston BSc (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State
Decision date: 12 November 2021
Costs application in relation to Appeal Ref: APP/D1265/W/20/3265743
Land South of Lower Road, Stalbridge, Dorset
• The application is made under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, sections 78,
320 and Schedule 6, and the Local Government Act 1972, section 250(5).
• The application is made by [APPELLANT] for a full award of costs against Dorset
Council.
• The inquiry was in connection with an appeal against the failure of the Council to issue a
notice of their decision within the prescribed period on an application for planning
permission for development described as ‘outline planning application for the erection of
up to 114 dwellings, up to 2,000 sqm of employment space (use class b1, with up to
one use class a1 unit), vehicular access points and associated works’.
Decision
1. The application for an award of costs is refused.
The submissions for [APPELLANT]
2. The Council’s unreasonable behaviour has been substantive – i.e., relating to
the issues arising from the merits of the appeal. In the alternative, it is an
application for a partial award of costs arising from the LPA’s failure to follow
the process.
Full award – substantive unreasonableness
3. What lies at the heart of the LPA’s case is that housing in Stalbridge should be
permitted only if it helps meet local needs. This is a wholly unreasonable
position considering the dire and persistent shortfall in housing land supply
across the district. There is no reason whatsoever why Stalbridge should not
accommodate strategic housing needs, for the reasons set out in the LPA’s
own evidence base for its emerging plan.
4. It cannot be reasonable for an LPA to come to inquiry and reject its own
evidence base, which members have considered, accepted and on the basis of
which it has gone out to consultation on its draft plan. It matters not that the
plan gets limited weight – what matters is that no explanation has been
provided as to why the evidence base on which the plan is based should be
rejected.
5. The way in which the LPA has considered other sites (adjacent to the appeal
site) not only supports the above submission, but also supports the further
submission that the LPA has failed to determine similar cases in like manner.
Adjacent sites were allowed on basis that the housing would contribute
towards both Local and Strategic Needs to address the housing land supply
deficit and because in that context para 11 was engaged. it argued that the
site was not sufficiently proximate to services and facilities in Stalbridge. Once
again, this shows that it has been guilty of not determining like cases in like
manner.
6. At this appeal the LPA’s position has been that applications in Stalbridge can
only be granted if Local Needs exist, completely inconsistent with these
previous decisions in the same town, in the same planning policy context
(same Dev Plan/same deficit in 5yr HLS).
7. The LPA’s position as respects the weight to be attached to AH is one that
simply does not reach the threshold of respectability. What forms the basis for
saying that this argument is wholly unreasonable, and should never have
been ran, is that no reasonable inspector could possibly accept that anything
other than substantial (i.e. ‘top of scale’) weight should attach to the delivery
of AH in a district that has only a 3.3 yr supply of all types of housing, over
1,200 people on the housing waiting list (for the former North Dorset area
alone) and which has persistently failed to provide sufficient AH year on year
for almost a decade.
8. As the LPA has acted completely inconsistently with its earlier decision which
allowed development further away in walking distance from the key facilities
in the Town, with no reason set out for deviating from that earlier decision
which was based on facts (i.e., measured distances to facilities) which have
not/cannot have changed.
9. Finally, the LPA’s RFR alleging adverse impact on Character and Appearance
of the area is (a) inconsistent with the decision it took on the adjacent sites
and (b) was based on wholly inaccurate and misleading calculations of
density. Give that this is an outline application, with all matters reserved, no
clear reason or explanation was provided as to why this site could not
accommodate the proposed density of development in an acceptable manner,
but adjacent sites can.
10. All the above, taken cumulatively, demonstrate unreasonable behaviour. All
the reasons which justified permission on the adjacent sites clearly justified
permission on this site, as the professional officers of the Council well
understood.
Partial award - Procedural
11. Despite no mention of the during the application process, in the RTC, in the
RFR or at the CMC the LPA decided at the 11th hour just before the inquiry
opened to raise an objection on ecology grounds. As a result of this the
Appellant had to prepare evidence on ecology for the April inquiry, none of
which was required and constituted a waste of expenditure.
12. The LPA went out of its way to seek objections after the matter had already
been taken to c’tee, after RFR had already been issued, and after the
Inspector had at the CMC already outlined the issues in dispute. The Council’s
approach caused an inordinate amount of time to be expended by the
Appellant in seeking to understand and respond to a case that continued to
shift right up to the opening of the inquiry.
13. The LPA’s case on Character and Appearance morphed and grew into an array
of issues, all revealed very late in the process leading the Appellant to spend
time and money on trying to figure out the LPA’s case and respond to it. The
Council failed to deal with the preapplication enquiry, made no comments on
the illustrative master plan throughout the application process but then
conjured up a RFR relating to Character and Appearance.
14. For all these reasons it is submitted that the LPA’s case was always
unarguable, and permission should not have been withheld. This is a clear
case of an LPA preventing or delaying development which should clearly be
permitted, having regard to its accordance with the development plan,
national policy, and any other material considerations.
15. The Appellant respectfully requests that the LPA be ordered to pay in full all
the costs that it has incurred in connection with and arising from the LPA’s
refusal of planning permission. In the alternative, the LPA should be ordered
to pay the additional costs incurred by the Appellant consequent upon the
LPA’s failure to follow the correct process.
The response by Dorset Council
16. It is not unreasonable for a planning authority to give effect to the policies of
its development plan. The fact that an emerging Local Plan, which is now
subject to over 60,000 objections and yet to be informed by pending
assessments, such as to employment and retail need; infrastructure and
transport needs etc., identifies the appeal site as a potential housing
allocation does not mean that the site is acceptable for this scheme or that
the status of Stalbridge within the proposed settlement hierarchy is fixed.
17. Simply because the Council has allowed some other development in
Stalbridge to meet strategic needs, in acknowledged conflict with the Local
Plan, does not mean that it is bound to allow every scheme there. The
circumstances of those cases were also different, and a different judgment
was formed. For example, at that time the housing supply in the rural areas
stood at 550 dwellings (i.e., less than the 825 dwellings envisaged in the
Local Plan), whereas now it stands at 1,517 and there was a greater local
need for affordable housing in Stalbridge.
18. The Council is perfectly entitled to come to the view that further development
in Stalbridge would unacceptably distort the spatial strategy of the Local Plan.
Indeed, the Inspector in the Waterlake appeal1 came to the same view, just
six months ago, notwithstanding the previous grants of permission in
Stalbridge and the Council has recently refused another scheme on Station
road, in Stalbridge on the basis that it is not a sustainable location for further
development.
19. As to the weight to attribute to the delivery of affordable housing, the Council
has presented evidence to justify Ms Witherden’s judgment that this is a
benefit to which moderate weight should be attributed. The Inspector must
consider the benefits arising from this appeal scheme in this location. In
circumstances where the local affordable housing needs over the next five
years have already been met and exceeded through extant permissions,
1 PINS ref: APP/D1265/W/3262267.
which are already under construction, it is perfectly reasonable to moderate
the weight attributed to the delivery of affordable housing.
20. Matters of density were raised as a consideration by the Inspector at the case
management conference. The suggestion that this reason for refusal was “a
moving feast” does not bear scrutiny. It is entirely unremarkable for a reason
for refusal to identify harm to the character and appearance of the area and
for the evidence to elaborate on the nature of the harm.
21. Turning to the partial application, the chronology at paragraph 17 of the
Appellant’s application is partial and misleading. The full picture, as set out in
the proof of Nikki Taylor, 5 reveals that the Council has not acted
unreasonably on the issue of ecology.
22. The Appellant was plainly aware, before lodging its appeal, that the Council’s
NET had outstanding concerns which it had been asked to address. The
Appellant failed to address those concerns in a timely manner, which resulted
in the adjournment of the inquiry so that it could carry out appropriate
surveys which, if it had followed the advice provided by the NET in November
2020 to produce a Biodiversity Plan could have been avoided.
23. The Appellant’s concern in relation to character and appearance appears to
relate largely to matters that took place before the appeal was even lodged.
The reason for refusal squarely raised the issue of the scheme’s impact on the
character and appearance of the area and the Council maintains its position,
supported by the evidence of Mr Hewitt.
24. The Appellant may disagree with the judgment formed by Council members
and by Mr Hewitt, but that does not mean the judgment is unreasonable, and
the Appellant has incurred no wasted costs in addressing this element of the
Council’s case
25. The Council has presented cogent evidence in support of its reasons for
refusing permission. The Appellant disagrees with those reasons. Ultimately
the Inspector will have to form his own judgment and may or may not agree
with the Council’s position. Planning judgments can, and often do, legitimately
differ without being unreasonable. The Council’s conduct of the appeal has
been entirely reasonable and in all the circumstances, there is no justification
for a full or partial award of costs
Reasons
Substantive
26. The Planning Practice Guidance (‘the PPG’) advises that, irrespective of the
outcome of the appeal, costs may only be awarded against a party who has
behaved unreasonably and thereby caused the party applying for costs to
incur unnecessary expense in the appeal process.
27. The appeal relates from the failure to determine the application within the
statutory period. On 16 February 2021 a report was taken to the Council’s
Planning Committee with a recommendation to grant planning permission. I
do not have the benefit of being party to the meeting and the discussions that
took place. However, notwithstanding the positive officer recommendation,
the committee was not bound to accept the advice and they had clear
concerns on specific matters that formed the focus of the Inquiry.
28. As it is often put in such appeals, depending on whether it suits the point
being made or not, each case should be considered on its own merits. Whilst I
appreciate that the applicant disagrees with the Council’s consideration of the
development, the concerns that led to the Council’s ultimate objections in the
suggested reasons for refusal are matters of planning judgement that involve
a degree of subjectivity. Even when previous decisions have been made on
similar issues no two sites are directly comparable and a balancing exercise of
competing and complex social, economic, and environmental considerations,
harms and benefits must be carried out.
29. Consequently, the exercise of planning judgment in an area with a lack of
5-year housing land supply does not amount to an automatic grant of
planning permission. It involves competing and complex considerations and
here, members clearly have concerns about the growth of the town, albeit
they were not shared by their professional officers.
30. As made clear in the appellant’s closing submissions for the associated
planning appeal, other appeal decisions in the same town that support the
Council’s view are discounted on this very basis. I also understand that in
those cases there was a greater local affordable housing need at the time of
those decisions.
31. The appellant may well disagree with the weightings of the Council, in
particular the use of ‘Limited’ weight for housing in the context of a 3.3-year
housing land supply. Whilst I have considered that to be insufficient, weight is
entirely a matter for the decision maker. The use of that phrase and
supported by the Council’s witness in evidence is no more unreasonable than
the use of the term ‘extreme’ weight the appellant implores me I would need
to give to the adverse impacts in the tilted balance2 in the associated planning
appeal.
32. As to the ‘threshold of respectability’ as put by the appellant, I also have not
given ‘Substantial’ weight to the housing benefits and yet I have allowed the
associated planning appeal. Perhaps this demonstrates to the appellant that
not all decision makers who fail to agree or do so are unreasonable.
33. Matters of character and appearance involve a degree of subjectivity even in
the context of residential development approved by that decision maker on a
nearby site, especially when there are concerns about cumulative impacts. I
also identified considerations of layout, density prior to the Inquiry as capable
of being important considerations and such matters are integral to the
resultant effects, including the issue of the central hedgerow and needed to
be addressed.
34. Although I have not agreed with the Council on this issue in terms of the
effects and resultant harm, I am satisfied that the Council’s case has been
substantiated in the submissions before me, it did not amount to
unreasonable behaviour in substantive terms.
Procedural
35. It was not until 1 April 2021 that the Council’s Natural Environment Team
(‘the NET’) raised the objection. The appellant contends this was a waste of
expenditure but having regard to the chronology of events put forward by the
2 MK PoE paragraph 10.21.
Council an ecological report and Biodiversity Plan appears to have been
previously requested by the NET.
36. When consulted on the second application in February 2021 the same
comments applied. That response also raised concerns about the quality of
survey evidence and that it was not compliant with NET guidance. This
response was forwarded to the appellant on 15 March 2021 to which the
Council indicated a holding objection.
37. On 22 March 2021 the appellant submitted additional information to the NET,
although this again turned out to be non-compliant with a response given by
the NET on 25 March 2021. The documents then appear to have been revised
but the bat surveys were ultimately still deemed to be insufficient. The Inquiry
was adjourned in part due to further protected species surveys being
necessary.
38. No final comments to the Council’s response were made by the appellant and
it would appear that despite some challenges in terms of response timescales
from the Council, if earlier advice had been followed then it is likely the
matter could have been resolved much sooner. Even if it could not the
evidence was required for me to make a decision and was not wasted
expenditure.
39. Turning to the position of Natural England it would appear attempts were
made to establish the position but whatever the realities of communications
may have been, the raising of this issue even at such a late stage is an
important consideration in my determination of the appeal and needed to be
resolved. Officers had recommended approval and I see no substantive
evidence of the Council going out of their way to seek objections.
40. In terms of shifting positions before the Inquiry, the Council had commented
on employment space being an issue they would address in evidence, and it is
a relevant consideration. The appellant’s concern in relation to character and
appearance appears to relate largely to matters that took place before the
appeal was even lodged and I have considered them above. However, in
response to matters I had raised that needed to be addressed, three days
before the Inquiry opened, amended plans were received.
41. The appellant’s own case could also be described as a somewhat moveable
feast, including treating the development plan as almost irrelevant to start
with and then in cross examination concluding the Council the proposal would
conflict with its policies, and the plan as a whole. The flexibility to deal with
changing situations that arise, or a party wishes to raise no matter how late in
the day works both ways and to my mind does not amount to unreasonable
behaviour.
42. Overall, this is not a clear case of preventing development which should
clearly be permitted. Indeed, there was little clarity at times in both cases,
but the evidence does not indicate to me that the Council went out of their
way to seek objections to the proposal. I do not agree that their case was
always unarguable, and permission should not have been withheld.
43. For the reasons given above, neither in substantive or procedural terms has
unreasonable behaviour resulting in unnecessary or wasted expense, as
described in the PPG, been demonstrated.
44. Therefore, the application for an award of either a full or partial award of
costs is refused.
Richard Aston
INSPECTOR