WEST DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL Planning Department

Planning Application Ref: WD/D/17/000986 – VEARSE FARM BRIDPORT

 

COMMENTS BY

Gavin Fryer

The Sycamores, 85 West Allington, Bridport DT6 5BN

22 May 2017

 

[In this text § signifies a separate §ection of this Commentary]

 

• 1 Overall Commentary on the Proposed Development

1.1              I urge the rejection of this Planning Application for Outline Planning Permission on the following broad grounds:

• The scheme has serious underlying flaws;
• Were this proposal to be implemented, it would have a major and detrimental effect on Bridport and

its surrounding area; and

• Hallam’s have, until now, failed to address many of these issues in the Master Plan.

 

1.2 The scale and speed of the development

This housing development is a large addition to Bridport’s housing stock and potential population. I am not against growth of towns or, indeed, Bridport. I support the provision of low-cost housing in Bridport, that ought to carry a covenant that limits ownership to long-time residents of the Town, particularly younger people who have not previously owned any dwelling*.

The proposal to build 760 houses in a 10-year period on the outskirts of a town of 14,600 residents is excessive. The impact of this development and its size on the Town and its setting within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) would be very considerable.

* Such a covenant would avoid multiple property ownership, even of another ‘low-cost’ dwelling.

 

• 2 The Inadequacy of the Master Plan – National Best Practice

The scheme woefully fails to meet national best practice in terms of Master Planning. Before Councillors consider this Application, they should study other Master Plan schemes. In broad terms Hallam have failed in many respects, described in these Sections:

• Overall Commentary on the Proposed Development; (§1 above)
• The Inadequacy of the Master Plan; (§2)
• Lack of Consultation; (§3 below)
• The local area and Bridport’s place in the AONB; (§4 below)
• The demand and proven need for 760 houses; (§5 below)
• Steps to deal with run-off flood water; (§6 below)
• Traffic on A35 and associated risks for residents in West Road / West Allington / B3162; (§7 below)
• Damage and significant risk to the health and well-being of residents of Bridport; (§8 below)
• Other specific issues; (§9 below) and
• Summary and Immediate Action. (§10 below)

 

• 3 Lack of consultation

3.1              For a scheme of this scale, evidence of far more meetings with local people would be expected. As a result, the issues identified as “Inadequacies” of the Master Plan that will have a negative impact on the Town as a whole have been superficially addressed. A particular example is the road junction where Magdalen Lane meets the B3162 and faces Allington Hill Road. This junction simply cannot cope with the considerable increase in traffic. (See §7.7 on Future Expectation)

When there was an opportunity early in New Year 2015 at Bridport Town Hall for members of the public to talk with representatives of Hallam and its advisers, it was evident that virtually no one had walked the roads and surrounds of the site or spoken to local residents. There has been little attempt in this Master Plan to address the issues of traffic in town, parking facilities or medical staff, services and facilities or local residents. The identification of a site for a school at Vearse Farm seems ironic because it would mean the closure of St Mary’s School; that school certainly does not wish to move.

Hallam’s desk-top generated plans for the site suggest that this work was largely done in a vacuum. The deliberations between Hallam and WDDC over at least a 6-year period appear not to have flagged-up the issues now brought to light.

Given the huge potential impact on Bridport, this seems somewhat astonishing.

 

3.2 15% increase in Bridport’s population at a stroke

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘The spectacular landscapes of West Dorset, from the panoramic chalk ridges to the wooded valleys and undeveloped coastline, the picturesque settlements and variety of natural habitats, are something that set it apart from the rest of the country. We are proud of this, and want to be able to say the same in 20 years’ time.’ (1.3 VISION AND OBJECTIVES – A VISION FOR WEST DORSET)

Comment:

Were the Vearse Farm development be allowed, that would be in direct conflict with this statement and would demonstrate a lack of consideration for the impact of the development on the character of the area.

It cannot be stressed often enough:

Vearse Farm and the 2000+ residents will have a dramatic effect on the town, adding nearly 15% to the existing population at a stroke. In practice, the other Planning Applications approved by WDDC from mid 2014 to early 2017 include another 62 dwellings, 3 flats and 26 apartments in Bridport that are likely to add more than 1%, to the town’s population. If two fields adjoining the East side of the Vearse Farm site, shown on one of the plans of the site as though for houses, albeit not part of this Application, are included the percentage addition to the Town’s population could be more.

The scale is excessive; when taken together, effectively this expansion would be decided on a single Planning Application, that is a single approval! The Application should be rejected.

 

• 4 The local area and Bridport’s place in the AONB: Inspector’s Report on the 2015 Local Plan

4.1 AONB and Agriculture

The proposed development is in an area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and good agricultural land lying in the alluvial valley of the River Simene, and it transgresses national and WDDC planning guidelines, particularly relating to flooding and to the protection of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

In approving the inclusion of Vearse Farm in the Local Plan the Inspector, Mr Crysell, justified it (para 177) by reference to ‘exceptional circumstances. He did not however spell out what these are.

I consider that these only make sense if Vearse Farm was an exceptionally good site for housing. (See below for my comment on Flooding risk and traffic loading.) There are considerable costs to be borne by one party or another to fund the extensive infrastructure works, so it is to be expected that the sale prices of the proposed houses will be well above the financial capability of local people.

By contrast, Vearse Farm was a key portion of the overall estate at Symondsbury of 3,900 acres that 200 years ago produced one quarter of the flax grown in Dorset. The farm has very good agricultural land to the south of the Symene River and all the way westward to Miles Cross that would have been classed as Grade 2 when those grades were in common parlance. Until 2003 Vearse Farm was renowned for the quality of Flax the Rope and Net industry on which the Town hitherto thrived.

There is no excuse, or valid ‘exceptional circumstance’, for removing these alluvial fields from Bridport’s stock of good agricultural land. Clearly these acres could still be producing more of the food eaten by residents of Bridport.

 

4.2 Wildlife Habitats

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘Internationally designated wildlife sites (…..), will be safeguarded from development that could adversely affect them, unless there are reasons of overriding public interest why the development should proceed and there is no alternative acceptable solution.’ (ENV2. WILDLIFE AND HABITATS (i))

Comment:

What can be the compelling arguments for disturbing the balance of wildlife habitats by proceeding with this Planning Application? The need for another 2,000 additional people in Bridport has not been justified in any documents presented to the public. Even so, the Town does not need so many houses the price of which would almost certainly dictate that they would be bought by ‘absentee landlords’, when the real and only justifiable need is for low-cost housing for the young people of the Town and those on low wages.

 

4.3 Protection and Enhancement of the Environment

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘Development should protect and enhance the natural environment – its landscape, seascapes and geological conservation interests, its wildlife and habitats and important local green spaces – by directing development away from sensitive areas that cannot accommodate change. Where development is needed and harm cannot be avoided, appropriate mitigation to off-set any adverse impact to the landscape, wildlife and green infrastructure network will be required.’ (STRATEGIC APPROACH)

Comment:

No information is provided in the supporting documents with this Planning Application that justifies such a development need.

 

4.4 Conservation, Listed Building and Landscapes

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘The councils will have special regard to the conservation of the area’s natural beauty in development management decisions. The cumulative and indirect, as well as the direct, impacts of development need to be taken into account, such as changes to drainage which could affect the landscape down stream. Effects of development outside, but affecting the AONB (within its “setting”), will also need to be carefully considered. National policy guidance gives great weight to conserving the landscape and scenic beauty of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and states that planning permission should be refused for major developments in these designated areas except in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. Consideration of such applications should include an assessment of:

• the need for the development, including in terms of any national considerations, and the impact of permitting it, or refusing it, upon the local economy;
• the cost of, and scope for, developing elsewhere outside the designated area, or meeting the need for it in some other way; and
• any detrimental effect on the environment, the landscape and recreational opportunities, and the extent to which that could be moderated.’

(2.2 PROTECTING AND ENHANCING OUR NATURAL ENVIRONMENT – LANDSCAPE AND SEASCAPE para 2.2.3)

Comment:

The farmhouse at Vearse Farm is a Grade 2 listed building. Why is development to be allowed near this building that would reduce its impact in the ‘green’ landscape? Surely this Application should not go ahead in its present form.

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘ii) Applications affecting the significance of a heritage asset or its setting will be required to provide sufficient information to demonstrate how the proposals would positively contribute to the asset’s conservation.’ (ENV4. HERITAGE ASSETS)

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘The plan area’s exceptional landscapes and seascapes and geological interest will be protected, taking into account the objectives of the Dorset AONB Management Plan and World Heritage Site Management Plan. Development which would harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the Dorset Area of Outstanding Beauty or Heritage Coast, including their characteristic landscape quality and diversity, uninterrupted panoramic views, individual landmarks, and sense of tranquillity and remoteness, will not be permitted.’ (ENV1. LANDSCAPE, SEASCAPE AND SITES OF GEOLOGICAL INTEREST (i))

Comment:

This application flies in the face of these direct ‘commands’ and should not be permitted. How can WDDC possibly approve this Application for Planning Permission.

The Application must be resisted.

 

• 5 The demand and proven need for 760 houses

5.1 Demand for 760 houses is not proven

760 houses represents an addition of say 2,000 people, nearly 15% to Bridport’s population.

The Report Set Up To Fail by the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) showed why housing targets based on flawed numbers are threatening our countryside. The Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) was studied by CPRE in 2015. This study showed that of 54 recent Local Plans examined, the average housing requirement was 30% above Government projections, in some cases up to 50% overstated.

CPRE has demonstrated that flawed national processes have distorted housing need figures, and that these figures are generally 35% higher than has been demonstrated to be the public need. However, there is demand for low-cost housing in Bridport – though not of the type or price that would be proposed for Vearse Farm (‘VF’). It is understood that a majority of the housing units on VF would be offered on the open market, at open-market prices. That does not satisfy the real local need (see 5.4 below).

The scheme does not reflect the interests of Bridport but rather the need of WDDC to deliver its hypothetical housing targets now shown to be greatly overstated.

 

5.2 The actual and pressing need for low-cost dwellings – Labour and Housing

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘West Dorset has many communities of different sizes, from the small, rural villages to the larger market towns. It is important to us that we have a thriving economy, decent affordable homes and a network of community facilities, so that local people of all ages and abilities can enjoy living here and playing an active part in their community.’ (1.3 VISION AND OBJECTIVES – A VISION FOR WEST DORSET)

Comment:

WDDC should not take steps that do not safeguard Bridport’s economy. Local businesses need younger people who can afford to live in this community to take responsibility for the sustaining such businesses and eventually take over management and direction of the businesses. Without low-cost housing how can a young person remain in the locality to be available for these roles. It is known that some younger people have, as a direct consequence, left Bridport to seek a dwelling at economical cost in the environs of Exeter.

These factors are also important to us, the residents.

 

5.3 Lack of Low-cost Housing

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘1.2.2 West Dorset is renowned for its outstanding environment, including a varied and beautiful landscape underpinned by great geodiversity which is expressed in the internationally recognised coastline, the Jurassic Coast World Heritage site, attractive villages and market towns. It has a range of cultural and historic associations, including those with Thomas Hardy’s novels, the Tolpuddle Martyrs and early discovery of fossils at Lyme Regis. Despite the high quality of life enjoyed by many in West Dorset there is a lack of affordable housing and some issues of rural isolation.’ (Paragraph 1.2.2)

Comment:

In the light of this statement in the Local Plan, what indeed is WDDC doing to help to deliver low-cost housing in the Bridport locality, making such dwellings available to young families and others, and those on the Housing Register.

 

5.4 Affordability of Low-cost housing

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘1.2.10 There is a high level of affordable housing need, with over 3,000 people on the housing register in West Dorset and 4,600 in Weymouth and Portland. The average house price outstrips local wages by a factor of 11 in Weymouth and Portland, and by a factor of 12 in West Dorset. More than 1 in every 20 homes in West Dorset is either a second or holiday home, and this proportion is especially acute in some coastal resorts. Increases in fuel prices will impact on local people, particularly those in older properties that have a poor energy performance rating.’ (AFFORDABILITY OF NEW HOUSING para 1.2.10)

Comment:

First, the term “affordable” in relation to a dwelling, in reality has no significant or comprehensible meaning. That would depend upon the subject’s means, since anything at a price can be afforded by someone. It is preferable to use the term “low-cost” in relation to housing, whether for outright purchase or for rental.

People who work in Bridport have incomes that in the lowest quartile that averaged £14,134 pa,; they need low-cost dwellings.

However, the houses planned for the VF site are likely to be priced over say £200,000 each; if 30% of such cost is intended to be the ‘affordable’ price for ownership ‘entry’, the likelihood of Bridport young people who earn c. £15,000 pa being able to service £60,000 is impossible. These people have to buy food every week and clothes from time to time, and pay the utilities.

On this basis the excessive number of houses the subject of this Planning Application means that it

should be rejected outright.

 

• 6 Steps to deal with run-off flood water

6.1 Risk of flooding from Surface Water flowing from VF Development

The Environment Agency have high profile concerns about the flood risk on the Vearse Farm site. Many of their concerns have yet to be satisfactorily dealt with.

I urge Councillors of WDDC to withhold permission until these have been addressed.

 

6.2              Hallam may say that there is little building in the areas most at risk of flooding. The concern shared by many in the town is not only about on-site flooding but equally the impact that the run-off will have in Bridport and West Bay. These have potential for damage and worse. Phrases such as ‘once in a 100 years’ provide little assurance to local residents who can vouch for the material floods that have occurred in the last five years.

6.3              The flood map from Environment Agency’s website dated 2014 shows four levels of flooding risk.

This likelihood of flooding from Surface Water in any given year may fall in one of the following four categories:

• ‘High’ means greater than or equal to 1 in 30 (>3.3%);
• ‘Medium’ means less than 1 in 30 (<3.3%) but greater than or equal to 1 in 100 (>1%);
• ‘Low’ means less than 1 in 100 (<1%) but greater than or equal to 1 in 1,000 (>0.1%);
• ‘Very Low’: means less than 1 in 1,000 (<0.1%).

These have happened both in winter and summer, and certainly twice if not three times in a single season. For Councillors who do not know the area it is worth pointing out that Bridport is well-known as a flood-prone district and is so close to the sea that if the sluice gates are shut by high tides at West Bay much wider areas of flooding will inevitably ensue.

The ratio ‘1 in 100’ is irrelevant in the context of Vearse Farm.

 

6.4 The proposed cycle route and flooding at Magdalen Bridge

Last autumn the emergency services (6 vehicles and 10 Officers) were called to rescue a man caught in flood water at the proposed cycle exit onto Magdalen Lane. Hallam are proposing a ramp for cyclists and pedestrians. This is an extremely foolhardy proposal and shows yet again the lack of research on the ground. An 8-foot wide track on a ramp would if wider be liable to block the way for floodwater to escape. Meanwhile, youngsters on cycles could easily cause difficulties for four-wheel electric chairs, parents with prams or pushchairs, or older adults walking on the ramp. A person walking with the aid of sticks would be at peril.

And, any movement here by cycles that incorporate any type of electric or petrol motor assistance or principal drive other than ‘pedal-power’ should be absolutely banned.

 

• 7 Traffic on A35 and associated risks for residents in West Road / West Allington / B3162

7.1 Impact on A35 – HIGHWAYS ENGLAND objections

At present, HE has recommended refusal because of their concerns about the impact on the Miles Cross Junction. The trunk road in this vicinity is one of the worst accident ‘blackspots’ in the country. In order to protect both local residents who use this junction and drivers from anywhere in this country, an effective solution has to be developed that will reduce the incidence of traffic accidents on the A35 approaching Miles Cross from west or east.

This has to be a full roundabout junction that would have the advantage of slowing the speeds at which the traffic travels. All 50 mph limits on the A35 to the east of Chideock and eastwards up the hill out of Bridport Town to the turning into Walditch should be removed in favour of no more than 40 mph limit. Too many really significant traffic accidents have taken place along this stretch of the A35 that it continues to be known as one of the worst “accident blackspots” in the country. See also comments below related to B3162.

The B3162 cannot be considered in isolation from A35 and traffic circulation around and within Bridport.

 

7.2 Impact of traffic on West Allington / West Road (B3162)

The by-pass was built to alleviate the traffic using West Allington / West Road. Vearse Farm will add many hundreds of journeys on to this road every day and return the local population to the traffic chaos that subsisted before the by-pass was opened, and worse. (See other points in this Section 7.)

 

7.3 Impact on the Town Centre of Bridport of Traffic Jams and lack of Parking

These are big issues:

1. a) the increased traffic will put the junction of West / East / South streets converging at the Town Hall above the capacity for manageability. WDDC and the County Authority should expect many more instances of stationary traffic than has been evident until now, as a result of the additional traffic generated by 2,000 people and their services of all kinds.
2. b) even more significant is the impact on car parking. The proposed development scheme makes no provision for extra car parking in the Town Centre. Reports in the local press document cases of visitors who came into the Bridport town centre and, finding they are unable to park, drive away. The lack of car parking will have a very negative effect on the economic well-being of Bridport, the markets and, at holiday times the aggregate visitor numbers.

A Park+Ride facility is needed in conjunction with a car park able to absorb, say, 2,000 private vehicles. Such a facility would facilitate the Town’s economy to expand and, in summer provide for a larger number of visitors. The A3066 road towards Beaminster is one of the best possible routes giving access in and out of the Town along a main road. If there were a dislike of building houses in the vicinity of the abattoir off Mangerton Lane on the way towards West Milton, this would be a most suitable location for such a Park+Ride facility.

 

7.4 Pavements along West Road – Legal threat to WDDC

The record of the problems that result from cyclists and pedestrians using West Allington / West Road demonstrates that the pavements are simply too narrow. Individuals have from time to time had their clothing caught on vehicles and been drawn into the roadway. Hallam say this road is about 7 m wide:

actually the width shrinks in several places and down to 6.2 m width;

           There are examples nationally where Councils have been sued as a result of giving planning permission in

similar circumstances when at a later date people have been injured in accidents.

Allowing for the proper clearance for cyclists when motorists pass, of 1.5 m., means that there is insufficient space for a car or larger vehicle to pass without facing oncoming vehicles. Veering to the left pavement in that circumstance, a vehicle is likely, sooner or later to cause an accident, even a fatality.

Dorset County Council Highways Department has also voiced its concerns about the impact of Vearse Farm on West Road, the western extension of B3162.     These factors alone dictate a comprehensive review of work done so far. The Master Plan is, thereby, shown to be no ‘Master’.

Before any deliberations take place by Councillors the traffic issues must be solved. Capacity for vehicles is quite inadequate, if a significant number of additional dwellings are added to the existing housing stock on either side of West Road / West Allington.

 

7.5 Traffic in West Allington and Traffic Speeds

West Allington is already overloaded with lorry traffic and passenger. Vehicles consistently travel well above the 30 mph limit, indeed the speed limit in this road ought to be 20 mph. I have advocated this.

7.6              The Inspector, in his report – para 176 – gave no inkling of the measures necessary to solve the traffic augmented by the VF scheme. At a meeting of the Symondsbury PCC in the summer of 2015 at which Hallam gave a presentation about VF, the representative of the Highway Authority who attended that meeting also had not visited the ground for any study but merely suggested that all that was necessary to control the increasing flow of traffic along West Allington, was to add an extra lane on the entry from North Allington at the roundabout at the west end of West Street.

Probably that additional lane would add to the congestion – not solve anything.

 

7.7 Future Expectation

It is believed that the ‘pinch-point’ close to the junction West Allington / Magdalen Lane / Allington Hill Road is to be made even more marked. It is bordered by Listed structures that cannot be taken away or altered. Currently, Day-care Centre vehicles and others have to collect and drop-off individuals who reside in three of the buildings on the opposite side to the Bridport Medical Centre. Those people are in particular need of care services. Consequently, there would be additional traffic jams at this point. If traffic speeds are also reduced, that would be welcomed. The capacity of the road in present conditions would be reduced.

In any case, a 20-mph limit along all of West Allington is needed because traffic that ought to be routed along the A35 by-pass travels on B3162, and frequently at speeds 40-50 mph, that sooner or later will cause a fatality (see 7.10 below).

This potential consequence must be addressed by WDDC in conjunction with Dorset County Council Roadways Department to safeguard residents and avoid so far as possible such an event taking place.

There is no excuse in current times for any plans to be drawn up including ‘fudges’ that are dressed up as solutions to potentially severe and persistent problems. The problems cannot be made to evaporate!

Safety and improved life-style of residents should be paramount; should override personal preferences.

 

Vehicle weight limits to be enforced by camera

7.8              The 7.5 ton weight limit for entry to the Town’s streets is regularly breached. On 26 March 2017 at c.13.00 hours, a 32-ton closed-lorry was followed being driven into East Street, straight through the Town and along West Allington / West Road. This sort of passage must be stopped !

It’s 4-times the specified weight limit.

 

Traffic on B3162 must be re-directed to the A35 Bypass

7.9              This is a B class road: the Bridport by-pass on the A35 was intended to take traffic away from this B road. West Allington is unsuitable for big vehicles and certainly for construction vehicles as it narrows at two points, has quite narrow pavements, is bounded by historic listed buildings, has the Bridport Medical Centre to which many people from all over the Town make visits, as well as Almshouses and homes for individuals with special needs. As many of these people walk to and from the Town centre, some along the narrow pavements, an accident is ‘waiting to happen’. Already people’s clothing has been caught up by passing heavy vehicles.

 

Recent near-fatality

7.10            An example of the risks recently observed in West Allington, in the week ending 6 May 2017 a driver of a private car coming from the Town centre, along West Allington, signalled to turn right into West Gables Close. Waiting to turn right, with a second vehicle behind, a third vehicle travelling from the Town did not pause, but passed at speed on the right off-side of both waiting cars, missing the first that had begun to turn by a hair’s-breadth. A fatality and write-off of three vehicles was avoided by only the slightest of margins.

 

• 8 Damage and significant risk to the health and well-being of residents of Bridport

8.1  WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘High priority will be given to protecting and enhancing the area’s heritage assets – including its Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas, and other features with local historic or cultural associations, particularly where they contribute to the area’s local distinctiveness. Development will be directed away from areas where there is likely to be significant risk to human health or the wider environment, through flooding, coastal erosion and land instability, air and water pollution.’ (STRATEGIC APPROACH)

Comment:

Based upon National Planning Precepts, WDDC must give high priority to protection and enhancement of the area’s heritage assets, etc., particularly where they contribute to Bridport’s local distinctiveness. The ways in which that precept is being delivered by the local authority are not readily evident from the proposals for development of VF.

Furthermore, Hallam have seemingly totally ignored, and failed to measure, the damage and significant risk to the health of the residents of Bridport that would be imposed were this Planning Application to be permitted.

This Application should be resisted with vigour.

No account has been measured of the additional noise, pollution, vibration arising from the considerable addition to the traffic in the western portion of the Town area and to a proportional extent to other parts of the Town. These factors can only lead to an increased demand on medical services in the area as a result of polluted air that residents have every right to enjoy. All of this says little about how the area’s heritage assets would be protected.

Surely personal health of residents should be paramount in the Council’s considerations, per National Planning Precepts.

 

8.2 Safety of Residents

WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘Development should be of high quality design to help achieve sustainable, safe and inclusive communities, enhancing quality of life for residents and visitors, and designed in keeping with or to positively contribute towards the local identity of the area.’ (STRATEGIC APPROACH)

Comment:

The safety of residents on the proposed site the subject of this Planning Application has not been adequately considered. Traffic risks that Hallam has barely touched upon and knows not how to deal with will inevitably increase should this Planning Application be allowed. It is totally unacceptable that this developer and the local authority having discussed this plan for six years and more, should present incomplete data and quite inadequate argument for exposing the public to specific risks that, through commentary submitted by members of the public on this Application, will be identified and will be evident to that Authority.

It needs pointing out that the word ‘should’ in this Strategic Approach is grossly unfair towards the Residents of Bridport. Why should the ‘Strategic Approach’ towards the safety and sustainability of the community in the Town be left to ‘best endeavours’ of the local authority, when the key role of that authority ought to be towards the quality of life and safety of its human constituents.

 

Such responsibility should rank above virtually all else that the Local and County Authorities do.

 

Adverse Impacts outweigh the Benefits

8.3  WDDC state in the Local Plan: ‘the following matters will be taken into account:

• the extent to which the proposal positively contributes to the strategic objectives of the local plan;
• whether specific policies in that National Planning Policy Framework indicate that development should be restricted; and
• whether the adverse impacts of granting permission could significantly outweigh the benefits.’

(INT1. PRESUMPTION IN FAVOUR OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT)

Comment: This Commentary in §1 to §10 argues that, without doubt, the ‘adverse impacts’ consequent upon potential approval of this Application for Planning Permission certainly do outweigh the benefits.

       This Application should be rejected.

 

• 9 Other Specific Issues

9.1  Insurance of Private residences in Flood prone area

The flooding risks and recent frequency of instances may render it difficult for householders to obtain insurance at normal rates. Once insurers are made aware of frequency of flooding, insurance rates for properties on the site could well be raised such that some residents could no longer afford to remain living there.

Recent experience of irregular floods suggests that these insurance rates can only rise.

 

9.2 Bridges

Flooding that occurs regularly can cover up to 100 yards of the roadway from West Road up to the existing Vearse Farm. There will need to be a raised roadway on bridges to ensure access to the estates at times of flooding. The Master Plan document states that these can be agreed at the ‘reserved matters stage’.

For reasons set out in this Commentary, this is quite unacceptable. As photographs of the recurrent flooding would show, either an embanked road or extremely long bridges will be necessary extending over the 100 yards or more along the access road leading to the Farm which is regularly flooded.

 

9.3 School

The provision of a school site is a sop. St Mary’s School can be expanded to take the limited number of children coming from Vearse Farm. To close St Mary’s would disadvantage the families from other areas who currently use the school. Many of these parents walk with their children to the present school; it would be a much longer walk should the school be removed to the Vearse Farm site. Were such pedestrians be using the ramp proposed at Magdalen Bridge, at the same time as cyclists, one can envisage a danger spot being created there.

 

• 10 SUMMARY and IMMEDIATE ACTION

10.1            In view of the difficulties shown by this Commentary that patently were not brought to view owing to the methods used by the developer in drawing up the proposals for development at VF, the following actions should be taken urgently by all Councillors who become involved in assessment of the viability and relevance to the needs of Residents of Bridport:

 

• to undertake a Full Site Visit, not only of the Vearse Farm site, as such, but equally important the residential roads and streets around the site, before debating the application;
• to read up about the serious issues attached to this particular development; and
• defer all deliberations on this Application for Outline Planning Permission until the traffic issues are demonstrably solved.

 

10.2            WDDC is clearly feeling under short-term pressure to approve development of housing sites that add up to delivery of the Local Plan. Vearse Farm has serious difficulties associated with it. It is such a large development that, in its present form, it is simply not in the best interests of the local residents or of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Even if it was in those interests, which it is not, Hallam has failed to undertake the quality of detailed planning that should have addressed the many concerns.

 

Councillors may feel they have a short-term duty to deliver their quota of these fictitious housing targets. But that is over-ridden by their longer-term responsibility to look after the interests of their local communities.

 

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, this massive scheme should be rejected, having regard to the huge detrimental effect it will have on Bridport’s locale in West Dorset, and the unsolved problems associated with it.

-end-