QUESTIONS ON THE DETAILED PLANNING APPLIC ATION

We have had some questions raised on the developers detailed planning application and why this does not cover all the major features that were in the Outline Planning application made in 2017.

The major features omitted are:

  • 60 unit care home
  • 4 hectares of land for employment
  • on-site community infrastructure: mixed use local centre, crèche, Public House, retail, and community hall
  • primary school and associated playing fields

The reasons for their ommission is that they are not being provided by Barratts/Vistry and so don’t form part of their plans. However, these features are covered by the Section 106 agreement and are therefore legally secured (well at least in theory). as part of the VF development.

Obviously you’d think that these features (and the associated services) should be considered at the same time as the detailed housing plans. After all it is vital that the new residents have somewhere to work and a local school for their children!

But that is not the way it is allowed to work – instead the detailed housing plans are approved first and then the rest of the S106 features (benefits to Bridport) come later on. However, legally Dorset Council could change the S106 and possibly omit providing some of the items. For example the school may not be needed or the employment land could be curtailed.

The employment land is owned by Colfox (Symondsbury Estate) – See our earlier post on this subject and their statement.

The S106 legal agreement means that the housing provision can substantially go ahead without any emploment land being provided or built out. The S106 agreement allows for up to 400 houses to be occupied before the employment land has been provided. We have previously raised this concern with Dorset Council as without the employment to attract new residents it is highly likely that many of the new houses will go to retirees, second home owners or holiday homes.

3 thoughts on “QUESTIONS ON THE DETAILED PLANNING APPLIC ATION”

  1. Schooling in this area and surrounding areas is problematic at best. We have great schools BUT kids are being taxied all over the county as their local schools are full. Without the provision for primary school from the get go. These new homes will only appeal to retired folk, downsizing and second home owners/holiday lets. This will further push up rents and 2/3 bed home prices. Having the opposite effect of what was outlined in 2017. To say they won’t is deluded at best!
    The simple question is will this development give the people who were born and raised in the surrounding areas a chance to own a house where they choose to live (HOME) or will they continue to be forced to move away from friends /family and often their workplaces?
    The omission of the following will likely mean NO!
    4 hectares of land for employment
    on-site community infrastructure: mixed use local centre, crèche, Public House, retail, and community hall
    primary school and associated playing field

    Without the community aspects touted.This development will just become a glorified holiday park and as with numerous local villages too many homes will be empty much of the time while locals struggle to find housing.

  2. We will wait and see but I think second to go will be the affordable aspect of this development on the grounds of the cost of fulfilling the S106 !!!!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *