Rupert Hardy from North Dorset CPRE explains why Dorset’s Local Plan Consultation matters – and how best to stop some of the worst housing proposals. Please read this – it is so important!
Over the last year or so there have been two events of seismic proportions hitting Dorset. The first was the election of a government clearly unsympathetic to rural areas, and the second is this Local Plan (LP).
Some people may not be aware that Dorset Council (DC) is preparing a new LP which sets out policies and development proposals for the next 17 years. The current consultation focuses on potential housing sites, with other aspects to follow.
The previous Dorset administration tried and failed to do this in 2021, after an avalanche of objections. The draft LP will not be published until summer 2026 – by which time it will be too late for any meaningful influence from the public.
A flawed formula for housing need
The government imposes a rigid “Standard Method” to calculate housing need. It starts with existing housing stock, then inflates numbers to reflect affordability – a blunt approach that doesn’t reflect Dorset’s reality. We do not agree with the standard method: local prices are distorted by second homes and wealthy incomers, with much of the county is covered by protected landscapes.
But the National Planning Policy Framework requires DC to show that it has examined all avenues for meeting government targets. CPRE considers housing need to be far lower than these targets: DC has said publicly the figures are unrealistic.
The government’s target is 55,000 homes over 17 years. Some of this is already covered by existing permissions, neighbourhood plans, and ‘windfalls’ – leaving 35,000 to 40,000 to come from new sites. DC is putting forward even more than this – roughly 15,000 more – to allow for landowners withdrawing, cross-boundary need (though this is unlikely, given most authorities are in the same boat), and sites being ruled out later.
To give perspective: Dorset has been building around 1,600 homes a year. The new target is 3,246 homes a year – double the recent rate.
Where are the sites coming from?
Most were submitted during the Council’s “call for sites” and assessed under the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA). Sites originally deemed unsuitable – often outside settlement boundaries – are now reclassified as “opportunity sites”. CPRE questions the merits of many of these, particularly the less sustainable ones outside settlement boundaries.
The focus has primarily been on finding sites in the towns and larger villages, but given the magnitude of the housing required, DC are now proposing to move settlement boundaries, with new developments of up to 30 homes being added to smaller villages. These changes risk exposing rural communities to speculative development.The rationale is to help small local builders, but settlement boundaries exist for a reason: they are a vital line of defence for the countryside. One of the reasons CPRE was founded was to stop exactly this kind of creeping urbanisation.
We’re also disappointed that town centre regeneration is not included in this phase of the LP. With high street retail in decline, we urge more imaginative new uses for brownfield sites.
Who will be most affected?
Bishop’s Caundle is likely to be the worst-hit village in the Blackmore Vale – sites have been proposed for 301 homes in a village of around 400 inhabitants, who will be engulfed. Residents of Motcombe, Hazelbury Bryan, Marnhull and Milborne St Andrew will also be pretty unhappy reading this consultation, given the numbers. Sherborne will be the worst affected town, with suggested sites for 2,083 homes: current population is 10,300. The least affected is Sturminster Newton, but all the North Dorset towns and most large villages have to expect more developments on top of what is already happening. North Dorset and Sherborne CPRE stands ready to give advice.
Around 8,800 homes are proposed in “opportunity sites” across North Dorset: those next to towns are more likely to proceed. Village sites may well be ruled out down the line due to infrastructure shortfalls or unsustainable locations.
Overall, though, North Dorset communities will be drowning their sorrows less than other parts of Dorset (this is no help to those affected, of course). Elsewhere in Dorset, proposed numbers for Crossways, Lytchett Matravers, Lytchett Minster and Upton, Wool and Sturminster Marshall are frighteningly high. Towns like Weymouth, Wimborne and Dorchester face major expansion – and ‘Norchester’ (a large site north of the county town) an ever real threat now a masterplan has been commissioned.
The logic for this is that employment prospects are better in adjoining Poole/ Bournemouth and Dorchester/Weymouth. The latter has suffered more deprivation than other Dorset towns – but it has now received £20m in regeneration funds.
DC are also preparing to commit to at least one New Town – but most take 10 to 15 years before they are shovel-ready, so that discussion will not impact this LP much.
Consequences if this goes ahead
If all these houses are built, the impact will be appalling. Roads will be overwhelmed – and there are no serious plans for transport improvements. Our already-stretched infrastructure, especially healthcare, will struggle to cope. Dorset Council acknowledges this but has limited control – GP surgeries are private businesses, even when they’re providing NHS care.
Meanwhile, there’s little here on the affordable and social rented housing which Dorset desperately needs, rather than the four-bedroom executive homes the national housebuilders love to sell, which attract incomers rather than helping the young in Dorset on low, local salaries. Dorset Council would like to build more social housing – but has no clear plan or funding route.
A few bright spots
We applaud the Council’s proposal to phase many of the sites, buying time in the hope of a change of government policy in four years’ time, in favour of one less hellbent on concreting over the countryside. We also support efforts to include employment sites alongside new housing. And CPRE is especially pleased to see Design Codes covered, with a push for local vernacular homes built to net zero standards – a welcome shift from the soulless, inefficient “Noddy boxes” developers too often impose.
What you can do
If the Council, armed with compelling evidence from local communities, can show that certain sites are unsustainable and unsuitable for development, then they can reduce the housing numbers. Lower targets reduce the risk of failing the Housing Delivery Test – which triggers the dreaded “presumption in favour of sustainable development”, opening the door to speculative development. As some suggest the government focus is on basic LP numbers, rather than the delivery of them. We suspect that many sites will not get developed for other reasons too: in particular the limited capacity of the housebuilders, who are simply not interested in flooding the market with new houses they cannot sell.
How to respond
Please respond to this consultation, even if only to challenge some of the most egregious housing sites seeing the light of day. Your local knowledge of flooding, car dependency, wildlife and infrastructure is invaluable. If you have constructive suggestions, Dorset Council also wants to hear them.
Visit dorsetcouncil.gov.uk to see the plans and take part in the survey: you have until 13th October to respond. At the very least contact your parish or town council, which will certainly be responding, and which can consult Dorset CPRE for help.
Let’s stand together to protect our countryside for future generations.
