Greenbelt Approved Planning Application in Dorset: Development of a greenbelt plot for a pair of semi-detached bungalows.

“The planning officer states, in the first reason of refusal, that the proposed residential use does not meet the criteria set in policy DM20. Policy DM20 sets out that residential development in the countryside can be permitted if its tenure is allocated as affordable or for agricultural use.

Given that Policy DM20 was adopted in 2014, and that the LPA can not currently demonstrate a 5-year housing supply, the proposal should not be refused based on whether its tenure is affordable or market rate. As stated in paragraph 2.1 of the development management policies, if policies are out of date at the time of a decision, then the council should grant permission.

Paragraph 6.6 relating to housing policy 3 in the Local Plan adopted (2020) outlines the need for smaller homes (such as those proposed) for those not eligible for affordable housing, newly forming households, or downsizers. This policy aims to increase the affordability of market-rate housing in the area. As such the smaller dwellings proposed should be applicable to the exception stated in Policy DM20 given our current housing climate.

Paragraph 154 g of the NPPF permits limited infilling within the Greenbelt. While the planning officer states this is relevant to the proposal, they argue that the proposal does not comply with the provision to preserve openness.

Reasonable effort has been taken to ensure the feeling of openness is not only preserved but enhanced through the proposal. As per the adopted design guide for rural areas of the new forest, we have reduced hard boundaries such as the 2m fence, and created an opportunity for a natural enclosure to grow. Our proposal adds 165m2 of soft surfacing to the site which as the planning officer outlines is currently hard surfacing.

While the planning office rejects this statement on account of the street scene provided, this perspective is not representative of a real-life observation. Moving along Hintonwood Lane, and comparing the experience between Hintonwood Lane, Station Road, and the parking area, it is clear that removing the fence and storage containers, setting the building back, and allowing a natural frontage to return will only support the feeling of openness and add to the character of this area.

In the second reason for refusal, the planning officer states that the proposal will not benefit the character of the area.

in contrast, the parish council states that the proposal will be an improvement in the character of the area. A perspective that they have not given to previous applications on the site. The proposal respects the hierarchy of buildings within the street and follows the form of no.3 Hintonwood Lane and the adjacent bungalow.

The third reason for refusal refers to unacceptable living conditions as a result of living adjacent to the station. Again, in contrast to the opinions of the planning officer, living adjacent to the train line has not been shown to give rise to unacceptable living conditions. The station house is successfully listed on AirB&B with a 4.71 Star Overall rating. Many reviews outline that they enjoyed living by the train station and were not impacted by the noise. Any concern over the vibrations can be overcome at the technical design stage.

In balance, the proposal will add much-needed homes to the area, the proposal has demonstrated to have a positive impact on the character of the area, and the proposal is in a location that is desirable to live in. The proposal should not be refused based on outdated policies or on contested options about its character.”