Content

That the
Council will no longer defend reason(s) for refusal numbers 1 and 2 relating to
‘highway/layout’ and ‘ecology’ which the Council had previously put forward in
relation to the refusal of application P/FUL/2024/04613. 

 

Appeal
reference:
APP/D1265/W/25/3372602 

 

Planning
application:
P/FUL/2024/04613 

 

Location: Land rear of 156-172, South Street,
Bridport DT6 3NP 

 

Description
of development:
Redevelopment for erection of retirement living accommodation comprising 48
apartments, 25 cottages, communal facilities, access, car parking and
landscaping to create an integrated retirement community. 

 

The
planning application was refused under delegated authority on 21/03/2025.  

 

The
application was recommend refused for the following reasons: 

 

1.    
By
reason of the layout and design, and in particular the lack of 2m footways and
conveniently located ramped entrances, and having regard to the Public Sector
Equalities Duty as set out in the Equalities Act 2010, the proposed scheme
fails to provide an inclusive, safe and accessible pedestrian environment for
all, fails to minimise disadvantage and conflict within the highway through
good design, and fails to prioritise the pedestrian, contrary to the aims of
paragraphs 115-117 and 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF),
the Department of Transport’s Inclusive Mobility guidance, the provisions set
out within the National Design Guide, BS8300: Design of an accessible and
inclusive built environment (Buildings - Code of Practice), policy AM1 and D12
of the Bridport Neighbourhood Plan, and Policy ENV12 of the West Dorset
Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015). Furthermore, in the absence of details
relating to the positioning of gates across the highway, which could impede
traffic, junction radii and swept path analysis to demonstrate safe vehicular
access and egress, and details relating to the highway improvements to South
Street, it has not been demonstrated that safe and suitable vehicular access to
the site could be achieved without detrimental effect on highway safety.
Further, owing to the narrow highway widths and ability for vehicles to access
and egress the site via the secondary access opposite Jewsons, the safety of
road users would be compromised owing to its positioning, width and poor sight
lines. The implications to highway safety fall contrary to the provisions set
out at paragraphs 115-117 and 135 of the NPPF (2024), Policy AM2 of the
Bridport Neighbourhood Plan, and policy COM7 of the West Dorset Weymouth and
Portland Local Plan (2015). 

 

2. In the
absence of a full Ecological Impact Assessment evidencing the application of
the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy (which seeks avoidance, mitigation, and
then compensation as a last resort), and which fully assesses the significance
of impacts on protected species, and in particular reptiles; which explores the
possibility of securing a north-south connection across the site for reptiles;
and which fully explores mitigation measures ahead of translocation, but as a
last resort identifies a suitable receptor site to enable translocation of
reptiles; it has not been demonstrated that protected species would be
appropriately safeguarded from significant harm. Translocation of reptiles
should be the last resort, as specified by Natural England’s Standing Advice
for reptiles, and it has not been demonstrated through the application of the
biodiversity mitigation hierarchy that harm cannot first be avoided and, if
not, mitigated in line with the biodiversity mitigation hierarchy, ahead of
translocation and consideration of compensation being considered. As such, the
proposed development fails to comply with the provisions set out in paragraph
193(a) of the NPPF (2024) and criteria (iv) of Policy ENV2 of the West Dorset,
Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) and criteria 2 of Policy L2 of the
Bridport Neighbourhood Plan. 

 

3. The
submitted viability assessment does not adequately demonstrate that the scheme
would be unviable with the inclusion of affordable housing provision; and
insufficient justification has been provided to demonstrate good reason for
bringing forward the proposed development devoid of any affordable housing
provision, such that the associated benefits of the scheme do not outweigh the
need for affordable housing. Further, the proposed scheme fails to provide a
balanced development containing a mix of housing, such that it inadequately
addresses the range of identified local need. Consequently, the proposed
development fails to accord with the provisions set out within paragraph 66 of
the National Planning Policy Framework (2024), Policy HOUS1 and HOUS3 of the
West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015), and policy H1, H4 and H6
of the Neighbourhood Plan (2019). 

 

4. The
application site is located in an area at risk now and in the future from
fluvial flooding, being located within flood zone 2 and 3, triggering the
policy requirement to apply the sequential test. Having regard to the narrow
application of the ‘area of search’ and the restricted scope of that search,
excluding potential available sites, the sequential test is not considered to
have been passed; and it has not consequently been demonstrated that there are
no reasonably alternative sites at lower risk of flooding that could
accommodate the proposed scheme, in line with the requirements of Policy ENV5
of the West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) and section 14 (and
in particular paragraphs 173-176) of the National Planning Policy Framework
(NPPF). Furthermore, had the sequential test been passed, and the exception
test applied, the proposed scheme fails to demonstrate, through the submission
of an Emergency Plan, that safe access and egress can be achieved during a
flood event, having regard to all sources of flooding, and the known risk of
surface water flooding within South Street during the 1 in 100 year and 1 in
1000 year event, plus the 1 in 100 year event applying a 20% and 40% climate
change allowance. Furthermore, it has not been demonstrated that ongoing
maintenance of the flood wall can be effectively achieved such that the Flood
Management Plan for Bridport would not be compromised. The application
subsequently fails to meet the requirements of Local Plan policy ENV5 and
paragraph 181 of the NPPF. Further, having regard to the potential flood risk
implications, together with impacts on housing need, highways and impacts on
ecology, it is not considered that the wider sustainability benefits of the
proposal would in this instance outweigh flood risk. Consequently, the exception
test (though not applicable due to the sequential test having been first
failed), cannot be considered to have been passed, and the development would
fall contrary to the provisions set out in Local Plan policy ENV5 and Section
14 (and in particular paragraphs 177-179) of the NPPF (2024). 

 

The
application is currently the subject of an appeal (public inquiry). For the
reasons set out below, the decision has been taken that the Council will
no-longer be defending the first and second reasons for refusal relating to
highway/layout, and ecology. The Council continues to defend the appeal on the
basis of the other reasons for refusal, as set out above. 

 

The
decision not to defend these reasons for refusal is taken under delegated
powers as set out in paragraph 139 of the Officer Scheme of Delegation (which
forms part of the Council’s constitution).  

 

Paragraph
139 provides the following delegated powers: 

 

To
undertake all action relating to any matter arising in respect of any appeal,
call-in and/or other inquiry and/or hearing of whatever nature arising pursuant
to any Town and Country Planning Legislation including for the avoidance of
doubt but without prejudice to generality of the foregoing: 

(a) to
determine any response required in relation to any procedural issue relating to
any such matter including for the avoidance of doubt whether any such matter
should be dealt with by means of written representation, hearing or public
inquiry; 

(b) to
determine any procedural issue relating to any such matter including the venue
for the holding on any hearing and/or appeal; and/or 

(c) to
determine whether or not to defend any reason for refusal. 

These
delegated powers have been nominated to the Service Manager for Development
Management and Enforcement via the Local Scheme of Nomination for Planning
Services – Executive Director of Place. 

 

Reasons for the decision

Following
refusal under delegated powers application P/FUL/2024/04613 the applicant has
appealed the decision to the Secretary of State and requested public inquiry.
The inquiry is due to open on 13 January 2024.  

 

At the time
of the planning application, the applicant was not responding to officer’s
request for amendments and additional information. This information has now
been submitted with the appellant’s appeal information. 

 

With
respect to the subject, this information has been considered by DC Senior
Ecologist, DC Highway Engineers and DC Urban Design Officers.  They would
raise no objections to these amendments subject to conditions.  

 

In light of
this updated information, it is considered that the Inspector is likely to
conclude that these matters have been adequately addressed and do not amount to
a reason(s) for refusal.  

  

The
decision has been taken not to continue to defend the appeal for the remaining
reasons (3 and 4) for refusal. 

  

Officers
will seek to ensure the Inspector is made aware of the requested conditions.

 

Alternative options considered

There are not considered to be any reasonable alternative
options, in light of the updated information supplied by the appellant and
taking account of advice provided by the DC Highway Engineers and DC Urban Design Officers.