Content

That the
Council will no longer defend the remaining reasons for
refusal relating to ‘affordable housing provision’ and ‘applying the
sequential test’ which the Council had previously put forward in relation
to the refusal of application P/FUL/2024/04613. This will mean
that Council is no-longer defending the planning appeal for
this application. 

 

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 refused for reasons relating
to highways/layout, ecology, affordable
housing provision and applying the sequential test for flood
risk. On 24 October 2025, the decision was taken that the Council
would no longer be defending the reasons for refusal relating to
highways/layout and ecology, as the appellant
had submitted amendments and additional information to
address these matters. 

 

For the
reasons set out below, the decision has now been taken that the
Council will no-longer be
defending the remaining reasons for refusal relating
to affordable housing and applying the sequential test for flood risk.
This means that the Council will no-longer be defending the planning
appeal for this application.  

 

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. 

 

Reasons for the decision

Following
refusal under delegated powers of 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 2026.  

 

At the time
of the planning application, the applicant was not proposing any
affordable housing provision. West Dorset and Weymouth Local
Plan Policy HOUS1 (iii) allows applicants to justify a lower level of AH
provision than 35%. A lower level of provision will only
be permitted if there are good reasons to bring the development
forward and the assessment shows that it is not
economically viable to make the minimum level of provision
being sought.  

 

It has been agreed with the appellant that a policy
compliant 35% affordable housing is not viable. It is also acknowledged
that this is contaminated land and a brownfield site within the settlement
boundary of Bridport and there will be abnormal costs associated with the
development. 

 

The
applicant has now confirmed that they will provide an affordable
housing contribution of £500,000 toward off-site affordable
housing provision. This equates to approximately 10 units
(or 14% of the total number of dwellings). This compares to zero
affordable housing contribution at the time the application was submitted.
The Council’s viability evidence indicates that a higher affordable
housing contribution could be viable, and the appellant’s viability
evidence indicates that a lower contribution could be
justified. The remaining shortfall in the affordable housing
contribution (assessed against the Council’s viability
evidence) needs to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme. 

 

In addition
to the harm arising due to the shortfall in the affordable
housing contribution, the Council has also identified harm due to the
failure to provide a balanced development containing a mix of
housing, and a failure to pass the sequential test for flood risk. However, in
relation to the failure to pass the sequential test for flood risk, no
real-world harm has been identified, other than
the policy conflict. 

 

The
benefits of the scheme include the provision of open market housing, the
provision of an affordable housing
contribution, development of brownfield land, efficient use of
land, sustainable location of the site, economic benefits and
ecological enhancements. 

 

The Council
cannot currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply, and
based on the particular circumstances of
this case, it is considered that the adverse impacts of granting
permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. As
such, the decision has been taken that the Council will no-longer be opposing the grant of planning permission
for the proposed development, subject to suitable conditions and completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure off-site contributions. 

 

The
Inspector will need to reach his own conclusions when weighing the harms and
benefits of the scheme, and it will be for the Inspector to decide as to
how matters now progress. 

 

Alternative options considered

If the Council’s chooses to reject the offer of a £500k
contribution towards affordable housing provision, it will
be required to continue defending these reasons for
refusal. This option is rejected because, taking account of the benefits
of the scheme and the harms arising, it is considered that the adverse
impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably
outweigh the benefits.