Parish Council of Langton Matravers
www.langtonmatravers-pc.org

Minutes of an Extraordinary Planning Meeting of the Council, held in the Village Hall on Thursday 6th November 2014 at 7 pm.
Present: Cllr P White in the Chair (but see 3. below), Cllrs P Loudoun, P Christie, C Drayson, R Sheppard, W Knight, R Lucas. Mr Anthony Bird, Principal Planning Officer, PDC, was in attendance.
There were c.60 members of the public present.
1.	Apologies for absence. Cllr Lovell. Cllr Turner had announced that he would not be attending owing to having a disclosable interest in the matter under discussion.
2.	Declarations of Interest / Grant of Dispensations. None.
3.	Chairman’s Opening Remarks. Cllr White welcomed everyone to the meeting, and in particular Mr Bird of PDC Planning Dept. Owing to the high volume of comments on the application, it was RESOLVED: That Standing Order C2, requiring that comments and letters be read out to the meeting before a plan is discussed be suspended. This would save time. Cllr White said that he had recently had problems with hearing at meetings, and it was RESOLVED: That Cllr Knight chair the rest of the meeting. Cllr Knight acted as Chairman from this point on. He outlined the agenda for the meeting and explained the procedure for questions to Mr Bird and during the Public Discussion period.
4.	Questions to Mr Anthony Bird, Principal Planning Officer, Purbeck District Council.
Mr Bird gave a short introduction to the application process. This is an Outline Application, which will be discussed by PDC Planning Committee on 17th December 2014. Although the consultation period is officially over, there may be some ongoing consultation, and he will be preparing a timetable to sort out outstanding matters before 17th Dec. All technical comments are now in, but there may be an opportunity for further comments in relation to, for example, flooding issues. If further comments are invited, there may be a 14 day period for these, though PDC is not obliged to do this. He then took questions.
a) Mr Steve Tooley asked what was PDC’s definition of a ‘small scale development’ in relation to Rural Exception Sites ? Mr Bird responded that the NPPF does not define ‘small’. PDC looks at each site on its merits, trying to understand what the local need is, and considering whether a site might meet this need. He noted that this might be a phased development.
b) Mr David Senior noted that PDC Senior Housing Officer Mrs Chris McDermott’s figures given in her technical comments on the application (21st October 2014) do not reflect the results of the housing need survey for Langton Matravers (Dec 2013). He asked what is PDC’s Housing Allocation policy for houses in Langton ? Mr Bird said that it was inappropriate for him to comment on housing policy, but that the RES policy allows for allocation for parishes (i.e.not just one parish). He said that planning permission would be granted based on a S106 agreement, which will probably set parameters for the mix of Open Market and Affordable housing. The District Valuer will be looking at this; PDC does not have a firm ratio for viability, but works on a ‘site by site’ basis.
c) Mrs Carol Osborne expressed concerns about flooding in the vicinity of the site. Mr Bird said that technical experts are looking at drainage issues, including the possible implications of climate change.
d) Cllr Christie asked whether PDC’s RES policy included offering housing to adjoining parishes Mr Bird quoted PDC’s Local Plan RES policy (p.78) which shows clearly that RES are intended to meet a ‘current local need within the parish or immediately adjoining rural parishes’.
e) Cllr Drayson expressed concern about the content of the letter on behalf of the applicant from Sibbett Gregory: she said that it is not an accurate reflection of work done by the Parish Council. Mr Bird responded that it is common for a developer to employ a planning consultant to make such a response to comments at this point in the application procedure, and that PDC will review the letter, not necessarily agreeing with everything written. He reminded the meeting that what is important at this stage is the principle behind the outline application.
f) Mr Steve Tooley asked whether Swanage counted as a rural parish. Mr Bird emphasised that Langton would not be expected to meet the housing need of Swanage. Cllr Christie noted that Mrs McDermott’s comments of 3rd November mentioned Swanage; Mr Bird said that Swanage is not a rural parish.
g) Cllr Drayson asked what the Council is actually being asked to comment on, given that all matters of detail are ‘reserved’; the breakdown of number and type of housing units is crucial to meeting Langton’s housing need. Other Cllrs asked, in relation to Mrs McDermott’s proposals to change bedroom numbers of dwellings outlined on the plan, if Mr Bird could confirm that the size/type of houses will remain the same. Mr Bird said that the plan is only illustrative, and detail is as on the attached form, though there may be changes to this. If there needs to be a significant change, they may go back to the applicant.
Cllr Knight thanked Mr Bird for his attendance and for taking questions, and invited him to stay for the rest of the meeting, which he did. 
5.	Public Discussion period. 
a) Mr John Wootton said that he thought Spyway Orchard was a suitable RES, in the middle of the village, with safe access: there is clear need for housing which could be met, and he urged the Council to support the application. 
b) Mr Marcus Young also asked the Council to support the application, as it offers young working families, who find it very difficult to find accommodation and to afford to live in Langton, a chance to remain in their home community.
c) Mr Peter Wilson noted how young people who have grown up in the village are forced to leave and find housing elsewhere because of the lack of affordable housing in Langton.
d) Mr Barrie Mayes said that although many Langton people support the principle of affordable housing in the village, many do not think that this application represents the right site for it.
Cllr Knight thanked everyone for their comments.
6. Determine Council’s Comments on the following plan:
6/2014/0508    Turner 2K (Swanage) Ltd, Spyway Orchard, Langton Matravers BH19 3HG. O/A - Rural exception site for a development of 32 dwellings (24 affordable and 8 open market) - All matters reserved.
Using all correspondence received, Cllr Knight summarised the key points made for and against the application, as follows:
For -
•	Provision affordable housing which meets the specific parish need
•	The site is centrally located and provides good access to the shop and primary school
•	There are no adverse effects on views, visual impact and residential amenities
•	Quiet road with safe vehicle access to the High Street
•	Not out of scale or out of character
•	Provision of local employment with small workshops

A significantly greater number of people have written objecting to the application. The main material planning considerations cited are as follows:
•	Design considerations – the development is too large and out of keeping with character of the village and the AONB
•	Local Planning Policies –the development is not compatible with PDC and LMPC policies that affordable housing developments should be small and “pepper potted” (i.e. distributed throughout the community). Nor does it address the specific affordable housing needs of the village. 
•	Traffic generation and Highway Safety – the development will  generate substantial extra car movements which in turn will raise safety issues particularly at the junction Durnford Drove and the High Street
•	Car parking provision – the development will need more parking spaces than those provided for in the plan. This will increase the amount of parking in Durnford Drove, Gypshayes and the High Street which are not suitable for increased parking
•	Local flooding issues – the development’s roadway and hard standing will increase water run off leading to further flooding in the village
•	Previous Planning decision – development on this site has been rejected on several previous occasions

Other material planning considerations raised include
•	Loss of trees – the development will lead to a loss of trees.
•	Ecological impact – the development will lead to loss of habitat.
•	Loss of visual amenity – the development will have detrimental effect on the AONB.
•	Economic impact – the development will adversely affect the tourism with reduced visitors to Langton House and the local countryside.
•	Drainage issues – Current sewage infrastructure will not be able to handle the proposed development

Cllr Drayson said that her main concern was flooding, especially in the light of technical comments received by PDC (from Mike Goater, PDC Chief Engineer and the Environment agency).
Mr Bird said that although this is an Outline Application, PDC must be satisfied that all elements will pass the application process: these cannot be sorted out later. They need to look at specific issues such as highway access, flooding, and the ratio of Affordable to Open Market housing, and be clear that these are acceptable before passing the Outline Planning stage of the application.  
Cllr Christie thanked Mr Turner, the developer, for offering the village a way to resolve its affordable housing need. However, he expressed concerns about flooding, and recommended a site visit. He asked who can approve RES status for a site, and Mr Bird confirmed that PDC makes the decision. Mr Bird said that under PDC’s Strategic Housing Land Availibility Assessment (SHLAA) scheme, landowners can put forward sites which might be suitable in meeting housing need according to the Local Plan requirements. PDC take an active role in encouraging this.
Cllr White stressed that flooding problems could be managed, and quoted successful schemes in Swanage and at Afflington. 
Cllr Loudoun agreed that water run-off was a huge problem. He said that if he knew that by building the development Langton’s housing needs could be met, he would be look more positively at the application: however, he has no confidence that PDC’s present allocation policy will deliver the housing which Langton needs. 
Cllr Drayson stressed difficulties of access to Durnford Drove from the B3069. She noted that ‘affordable’ means 80% of open market rent, meaning that in Purbeck, where open market rents are relatively high, most households need housing benefit to ‘afford’ rents on these homes. She would favour a community-led scheme.
Cllr Sheppard said that key points of concern had already been expressed, but added that the development would be of disproportionate size in a small village like Langton, and warned about dangers from the junction at the exit of the site with the lane to the south to Spyway car park. 
Cllr Lucas, having initially expressed support for the application, said that he could see the problems: he thought that these could be overcome.
RESOLVED: That this Council, while being fully supportive of affordable housing, objects to the Outline Planning application on the following grounds:
1) Local flooding issues
2) Traffic generation and highway safety
3) Local Allocation policies, inasmuch as this Council does not believe that they can have confidence that the specific affordable housing needs of the village, as identified by the Langton Matravers Parish Housing Needs Survey dated December 2013, will be met. Passed nem.con.

Closed c. 9.00.pm.

Signed………………………………………  (Chairman)    Date…………………………