Agenda item

Outline planning application for redevelopment of the Station Works site to provide a mixed development of up to 86 dwellings, a care home of up to 40 bedspaces with associated medical facilities, new pedestrian and vehicular access and traffic management works, a safeguarded area for any future rail improvements, and areas of public open space.

­Public Participation

Dick Budden spoke in objection to the application

Gerald Blundell spoke in objection to the application

Patrick Durnford spoke in objection to the application

Simon Trueick (Agent) spoke in support of the application

Gerry Murray spoke in representation of Tisbury PC

Morag Macnair spoke in representation of West Tisbury PC

Tim Martin spoke in representation of Ansty PC (& the Access to Tisbury Group)

 

The Committee had attended a site visit earlier in the day.

 

The Planning Team Leader, Richard Hughes, summarised the late correspondence which had been circulated at the meeting, relating to third party reiteration of objections to the proposal, and a further response by WC Education, relating a withdrawal of their S106 requirement.

 

He went on to present the report, which set out the merits of the planning proposal against the policies of the development plan and other material considerations. It was explained that the committee was asked to consider, in light of the non-determination appeal, whether the application would have been refused as recommended.

 

The outline application was for the redevelopment of the Station Works site to provide a mixed development of up to 86 dwellings, a care home of up to 40 bedspaces with associated medical facilities, new pedestrian and vehicular access and traffic management works, a safeguarded area for any future rail improvements, and areas of public open space.

 

The issues in the case were noted as:

 

·       Principle of development, policy and planning history;

·       Design, scale and impact to the amenity of the area/AONB/heritage asset impacts

·       General Amenity issues

·       Parking/Highways Impact, rights of way

·       Impact on railway station and line

·       Archaeology

·       Ecological Impact

·       S106 matters

 

The case officer showed slides of the proposal and the site. The site position and size were noted as were the footpath location, Landscape study, proposed screening and historic flooding which occurred under the railway arches.

 

The slides indicated the grass bank to the rear which would be unaffected and the visual appearance of the site, set out on a series of images taken from various location points.

 

The site was included in the NHP for development and was in the Settlement Boundary. Policy BL7 was summarised.

 

This was an outline application with all matters reserved, except access.

 

The comments from the Ecology Officer were noted, around the various proposals for lighting in the scheme and that some additional work was being carried out to alleviate some issues.

 

A drainage feature was proposed at end of the site. It was confirmed that Network rail had no plans to introduce a bridge over the railway.

 

The applicant had submitted the application to the Planning Inspectorate, for appeal due to non-determination.

 

The Officer noted that the Committee was therefore asked to consider the application in order to conclude whether the outcome would have been in line with Officer recommendation, if the matter had been considered. The decision of the Committee would then form part of the evidence for the Appeal.

 

Members then had the opportunity to ask technical question of the Officer.

 

The Officer explained that as with any large application the process included a great deal of back and forth between officers, consultees and the applicant to establish the required areas of information necessary.  In this case, the Viability Assessment was still ongoing and there had been a delay in receiving a response from Highways. In addition, further information was received from the applicant which led to discussions around flooding and consultation with the Environment Agency. The applicant had agreed the determination date of the application be extended until 30 June 2022.

 

It was confirmed that there had been no response from the neighbouring Dorset Authority regarding secondary school requirements.

 

Members of the public as detailed above, then had the opportunity to speak on the application.

 

Some of the points included concern around the associated road traffic on the surrounding residents and villages. The road network running through Tisbury were felt to be too narrow and unsuitable, for the additional commuters, site traffic and deliveries the development would bring, with the possibility of making it dangerous for existing residents.

 

It was felt that the proposed alternations to the railway arches would have a negative effect and the provision of a care home as the only employment offer was inadequate and that there had been no evidence to suggest that there was a need for a facility of this size in the Tisbury area.

 

The Agent for the application stated that the outline application met the NHP requirements, engagement had been undertaken to resolve concerns. The wait for the consultees responses was felt to have been too long. The delivery of the proposed scheme would provide new homes and a care facility for the community, with the creation of a pedestrian and cycle route to the village, an improvement to the currently dangerous bend.

 

Parish Councils noted the site’s potential for a development of some kind, however, they objected, based on several points, including, inadequate access, scale of development, lack of evidence to show a need for the care provision, lack of meaningful conversation with the community and parish councils surrounding Tisbury, the high level of objections submitted on the planning website, lack of adequate through roads, low level employment offer, density of dwellings, low level offer of affordable homes, and increased traffic.

 

Division Member, Cllr Nick Errington spoke in objection to the application, noting that the outline proposal had been in the public domain for some time and was of extreme importance to local residents.

 

Cllr Errington noted that he had abstained from any discussion or vote on the application when it was considered by Tisbury Parish Council, of which he was also a member.

 

An average assumption of 2.4 occupants per dwelling would equate to 276, a 12.3% increase to the population. Compared to a site in Salisbury, the proposals would be transformational for those in Tisbury, noting that the application would have been refused on Highways and Drainage grounds.

 

There had been a high level of responses with 259, with 258 in objection to the proposals, with 182 specifically noting an objection to the pedestrian proposal under the bridge.

 

Cllr Errington stated that there had been an incident of flooding in October 2021, which it was advised was not an isolated incident as there was a history of flooding there.

 

The site was listed as a suitable site for development in the Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan (NHP), however the vision in the NHP should be respected. The application failed to comply with the NHP as a whole.

 

The community engagement exercise, he felt could not be claimed to have fulfilled the consultation requirement and the provision of a care home was the only offer for employment solution, which was considered to be inadequate.

 

The level of Affordable Housing at 12% was much lower than the statutory 30% usually required.

 

The care home was not needed as Tisbury’s statistics showed that the requirement was much less than the provision and would put strain on the local GP surgery which already had 4200 patients registered. It would not be sustainable for the GP surgery, given the higher level of medical intervention that would be required by the care home.

 

Cllr Errington then moved the motion that the application would have been refused in line with officer recommendation, citing all the policies outlined in the report including the under-provision of affordable housing, but also on grounds of unsustainable housing density and blending with the existing environment, in contravention of NP policy BL7, paragraphs 4 and 7 and CP27 and CP57 of the WCS and also on the non-viability of a care home as employment provision at this location, in contravention of CP46, paragraphs viii, ix, x and xi.

 

This was seconded by Cllr George Jeans

 

The Committee discussed the application, the main points included the clarity of the concerns raised, the reasons for appeal, the suitability for development of the site to some degree, in harmony with the NHP and in conjunction with local consultation.

 

Overdevelopment of the site, whether there was an established need for a care home, access to the development site through the neighbouring villages on the small roads and through the railway arches.

 

Whether there was a need for improvement to the rail crossing with the inclusion of a bridge. 

 

The Committee felt that the lack of a response from Dorset Council regarding secondary schools provision was inadequate and requested that the Officer check again with Dorset Council whether they wished to request a S106 commuted payment towards secondary school provision.

 

No defined drawings to consider and the proposal to block off one side of the railway arch, and the impact on traffic flow, flooding and safety.

 

The NHP’s request for mixed development, and that the only commercial/residential provision proposed was for a care home which did not feature anywhere as a requirement.

 

The issue of historic flooding and no provision of a scheme to address this.

 

The weight of the NHP was discussed and a level of disappointment in the developers who it appeared had gone against it.

 

After discussion, the Committee voted on the motion of Refusal as set out in the Officers report, with additional 2 conditions as set out above, with the request that the following note also be included, directed to the applicant:

 

Further, to avoid any inference that the opinions expressed in the Officer Report might be misrepresented as a statement of common ground, Members requested that it was noted that the application had not been based on a site masterplan, agreed with the community and key partners, as contemplated by the Neighbourhood Plan and its Independent Examiner and that it was based on questionable principles for development, as set out in objections from the Environment Agency, Highways, Drainage, Economic Development, Spatial Planning, Urban Design and the Cranborne Chase AONB partnership.

 

The Committee also requested the Officer to approach Dorset Council again to ask whether they wished to request a S106 commuted payment towards secondary school provision.

 

It was,

 

Resolved:

 

That Application PL/2021/09778 - Station Works, Tisbury, would have been Refused by the Southern Area Planning Committee, for the following reasons:

 

1.The proposal envisages the closing off of one of the existing vehicular routes under the existing railway bridge, and the construction of a raised pedestrian and cycle structure.  In terms of several critical aspects, the application does not contain sufficient information to allow proper consideration of the proposals. Notwithstanding the lack of detail, the principles of access for pedestrians and cyclists is unacceptable. The route proposed is unattractive and circuitous and is conditional on the road being close to vehicular traffic and the implications thereof, which is an unacceptable proposition.

 

Consequently, it has not been demonstrated that an acceptable and safe means of access for non-motorized users can be achieved to the site. Furthermore, insufficient information has been provided to demonstrate that the proposed pedestrian/cycle route meets the requirements set out within the Department of Transport’s Local Transport Note 1/20 and Disability Discrimination Act 1995, and that the proposed signals can be accommodated within the existing highway.

 

As a result, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan policies BL3 (2), BL7 (3), Wiltshire Core Policies 60, 61 & 62 and NPPF Section 9, paras 104-106 & 110-112.

 

 

2.Notwithstanding the highway access issues, the highway and field systems around the site have a history of flooding issues. The proposal envisages the access via Jobbers Lane which is located in Flood Zone 3. Therefore, if residents or the emergency services needed to access the site during the design flood they would need to pass through floodwater, during a flood event. The proposed walkway access will need to remain operational and safe for users in times of flood; result in no net loss of floodplain storage; not impede water flows, and not increase flood risk elsewhere.

 

However, this matter has not yet been resolved, and the proposals do not address the flooding/drainage issues associated with the accessing of the site and hence how suitable linkage between the site and the facilities and services in Tisbury can be achieved. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aims of policy BL7 (criterion 3 & 5), and HNA 3 of the Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan, and also the aims of policy CP67 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, and the NPPF guidance related to flooding matters.

 

 

3.Furthermore, at the present time, the viability assessment of the application remains ongoing. The applicant’s assessment is currently indicating that a policy compliant percentage of affordable housing cannot be provided on site. Until this viability process is completed, the Council assume that the proposal can provide the required quantum of affordable housing required by policy. Notwithstanding, the applicant has also indicated that they would not wish to provide the required contribution towards mitigating the impact of the scheme on existing educational infrastructure. Consequently, and in the absence of a suitable legal agreement, the proposal would therefore not be able to contribute suitable mitigation towards off site educational facilities; onsite affordable housing; the management or enhancement of on or off-site open space facilities, on site waste and recycling facilities,  the enhancement of highways access infrastructure,  off site rights of way, public art provision, or any contribution towards nitrate mitigation.

 

As a result, the proposal is contrary to the aims of CP3, CP43, CP50, CP52, CP57, CP69 of the Wiltshire Core Strategy, the Council’s Planning Obligations DPD, saved policies R2, D8 , the waste and recycling core strategy policy WCS6, and the aims of policy BL1, BL2, and BL7 criterion 6 in relation to the quantum of affordable housing.

 

 

4.The site is allocated within the adopted Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan for comprehensive redevelopment to include an appropriate balance of housing and commercial industrial units. In the absence of information justifying the need for a residential care home, or any analysis of its likely impacts on local medical facilities, it is considered that the proposal would not be in accordance with aims and objectives of policies EB1 (1 & 5), BL3 (2), & BL7 (criterion 4,5,7 & 9) of the Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan, and the general aims of Wiltshire Core Strategy CP27, CP35, & CP46 (criterion viii, ix, x, & xi).

 

 

5.The proposal envisages 86 dwellings and a residential care home, which does not reflect the scale, mix or density of development in the adopted Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan policy BL7.  The proposed development would be inappropriate for the site’s setting and out of keeping the character of the surrounding area in a way which would not be in accordance with the principles of sustainable development set out in the NPPF or the aims and objectives of policies BL7 (criterion 4,7) of the Tisbury Neighbourhood Plan; the general aims of Wiltshire Core Strategy CP27 and CP57, including the Council’s adopted design guide Creating Places, and the design guidance provided by the NPPF in relation to Design Guides and Codes.