Docstoc

INCLUDED ON AGENDA AT REQUEST OF LOCAL MEMBER

Document Sample
INCLUDED ON AGENDA AT REQUEST OF LOCAL MEMBER Powered By Docstoc
					Please ask for: Tom Murphy
Direct Line:   01258 484043
E-mail: Tmurphy@north-dorset.gov.uk

17 April 2003



To: All Members of the Development Control Committee
    All other Members of the Council for information

Dear Member

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE

A meeting of the Development Control Committee will be held in the Council
Chamber, Nordon, Salisbury Road, Blandford Forum on Tuesday 29 April 2003 at
10.00 am to consider the following items.


Yours sincerely




Elizabeth Goodall
Chief Executive




                                 AGENDA

1.   APOLOGIES

2.   DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

     Councillors are reminded of their obligations under the Code of Conduct to
     declare any personal and prejudicial interests

3.   MINUTES

     To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Development Control Committee
     held on 8 April 2003 (to follow) as a correct record.

4.   URGENT BUSINESS

     To consider any business certified by the Chairman as being a matter of
     urgency by reason of special circumstances.




                                                                                  1
5.   PLANNING APPLICATIONS

     5.1     Site Visits (attached)
     5.2     New applications, inc other deferred applications (attached)
     5.3     Decisions taken under Delegated Powers (attached).

     Key to Case Officers
     AJW     -      Andrew Williams            JLT    -     James Lytton-Trevers
     DR      -      David Randles              RT     -     Richard Towndrow
     TD      -      Terence Dear

6.   PLANNING APPEALS

     To consider the report of the Development Control Manager (attached)

Members of the Committee

G E Hine (Chairman)                        G A Miller (Vice Chairman)
R C Ash                                    M Jeffery
Mrs S Chapman                              A J Morris
D Clarke                                   G F Spencer
J R Gowanlock                              F A Webber
D Milsted



                      DATE OF NEXT SCHEDULED SITE VISITS
                             TUESDAY 13 MAY 2003

               DATE OF NEXT SCHEDULED COMMITTEE MEETING
                          TUESDAY 20 MAY 2003

                             TUESDAY, 18 MARCH 2003




                                                                                   2
INDEX FOR PLANNING APPLICATIONS – 29 APRIL 2003



                               SITE VISITS

APP NO        LOCATION                                               PAGE
2/2003/0109   Barn at Newlands, Newlands Lane, GLANVILLES WOOTTON    1-2
2/2003/0083   1 Fairside, Ansty Hollow, Higher Ansty, HILTON         3-4
2/2003/0116   Turnpike Showground, MOTCOMBE                          5-13
2/2002/1161   Part garden of St Giles, Shooters Lane, St James,      14-16
              SHAFTESBURY
2/2002/9181   Part garden of St Giles, Shooters Lane, St James,      17-18
              SHAFTESBURY




APP NO        LOCATION                                               PAGE
2/2003/0206   Adj 2 Damory Street/rear of 6 East Street, BLANDFORD    19-20
              FORUM
2/2002/0211   The Old School House, Bournemouth Road, BLANDFORD ST   21-29
              MARY
2/2002/9023   The Old School House, Bournemouth Road, BLANDFORD ST   30-33
              MARY
2/2003/0228   Plots 8 & 9, Red Barn Farm, Thornicombe, CHARLTON      34-35
              MARSHALL
2/2002/0689   Barns at Gourds Farm, COMPTON ABBAS                    36-41
2/2002/9101   Barns at Gourds Farm, COMPTON ABBAS                    42-45
2/2003/0128   Fanners Orchard, COMPTON ABBAS                         46-49
2/2002/0763   Ham Farm, GILLINGHAM                                   50-53
2/2002/0600   Land adj. Higher Farm, MARGARET MARSH                  54-57
2/2003/0160   Garland House, Portman Road, PIMPERNE                  58-59
2/2003/9027   Garland House, Portman Road, PIMPERNE                   60
2/2003/0220   The Old Post \Office, Down Road, PIMPERNE               61
2/2003/0236   Land adj. Long Cross Farm, Long Cross, SHAFTESBURY     62-63
2/2003/0034   Land rear of Woodmead, STURMINSTER NEWTON              64-66
2/2003/0182   Rear of Drapers House, Market Place, STURMINSTER       67-70
              NEWTON
2/2002/1158   River Barn, West Street, WINTERBORNE KINGSTON          71-73
2/2003/0211   River Barn, West Street, WINTERBORNE KINGSTON          74-75




                                                                       3
                       NORTH DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL

           DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29TH APRIL 2003

                                      SITE VISIT



INCLUDED ON AGENDA AT REQUEST OF LOCAL MEMBER

GLANVILLES WOOTTON (21)

Location: Barn at Newlands, Newlands            Ref No: 2/2003/0109
Lane, GLANVILLES WOOTTON                        Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Mr & Mrs G House

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Convert barn to 1 no. unit of holiday accommodation

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: Isolated modern pen type building on single-track lane. It is
situated immediately beside the lane.

Planning Policy: Structure Plan Policies S.I, EN.F and I.D. District Wide Local Plan
Policies 1.6, 1.8, 3.29 and 1.10.

Relevant Planning History:
2/2002/1003 – Refused planning permission on grounds that building would require
rebuilding to re-use it and that it would introduce incongruous activities and
ephemera owing to its prominence.

Consultations:

Wessex Water – No objections.

Parish Council – Objects on the grounds that proposal would require major re-
construction of the building and that it would be harmful to the character of the area.

Economic Development – Question whether adequate income would make capital
investment worthwhile.

Environmental Health – Require details of contamination.

Highways – No objections, conditional.

Representations:
1 in support.
5 objections – lane cannot support additional traffic, not in keeping, danger to horse
riders etc, would be empty for periods, lane floods.

                                                                                          4
Planning Appraisal:
This proposal is similar to that refused. It is a single skin concrete block, single
storey “pen” building.

In order to convert this building, it would require a new roof, re-cladding in stone and
new windows and doors. Very little of the existing is usable. The policy does not
allow conversion where the building is not of substantial construction, and needs
complete or substantial reconstruction and is not designed in keeping with the
surroundings.

Secondly, its prominent location, lack of any natural screening and relationship with
the lane make any activity; car parking, garden, washing lines etc., very prominent
and out of keeping with a building in this location.

There is no reason to approve this scheme contrary to policy. It has already been
refused once.

Recommendation: Refuse permission.

1. The building is not of substantial construction and does not have a general
   design in keeping with its surroundings and would likely require complete or
   substantial reconstruction to be brought into an alternative use. Its use for holiday
   accommodation in this prominent location would introduce activities and curtilage
   ephemera in an open rural situation. The proposal would be harmful to the
   character and appearance of the area and is therefore contrary to Environment
   Policy F and Settlement Policy I and Policies 1.10, 3.29, 1.8 and 1.6 of the North
   Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).




                                                                                           5
                       NORTH DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL

           DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29TH APRIL 2003

                                     SITE VISIT




HILTON (25)

Location: 1 Fairside, Ansty Hollow, Higher     Ref No: 2/2003/0083
Ansty, HILTON                                  Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Mr & Mrs A Glover

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect single and two storey extensions, carry out alterations

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: Side and rear garden of a semi-detached bungalow. There is a
garage and outhouse on the side of the building. The land is not level such that the
bungalow is on rising ground.

Planning Policy:
Structure Plan Policies: EN.G, I.D and S.C
District Wide Local Plan Policies 1.8, 2.10, 2.11 and 1.32

Relevant Planning History:
2/2002/1031 – Refused on grounds of overdevelopment

Consultations:
Parish Council:
1. Overdevelopment from two bedrooms to four.
2. Loss of privacy for neighbours.
3. Roof overlaps.

Representations: Three objections – out of keeping owing to size, overshadowing,
overdevelopment, capacity of septic tank, deleterious effect on fabric of their
bungalow, disturbance during building works, dormer window overlooking,
overbearing, parking inadequate owing to loss of space and increase in size, would
overhang neighbour, plans inaccurate.

Planning Appraisal: The extensions, part containing first floor accommodation,
would be situated on the side and at the rear of the bungalow. An integral garage
would replace the existing garage such that there would be parking for two vehicles
which complies with the policy in the District Wide Local Plan. The projection from
the rear would be approximately 3.8m, single storey and 0.3m from the boundary with
the adjacent bungalow which has a flat roofed extension on its rear where it abuts
this boundary. The side extension would be 4.5m in width and be approximately
1.0m from the boundary to maintain access to the septic tank. The dormer window
would be obscure glazed. It would be situated some 7.0m from the adjacent
                                                                                    6
property. In view of the above the proposals are not considered overdevelopment
nor likely to overbear, overlook or overshadow to an unacceptable degree.

The capacity of the septic tank would normally be a matter for Building Control.
Disturbance during building works, the effect on the building’s fabric and whether it
overhangs another’s property are not planning considerations.

The Local Planning Authority have reason to believe the plans submitted are
accurate for the purpose of determining the application.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:

1. Materials (Scheme Approval) (the cladding of the roof)
2. Obscured Glazing (west elevation)




                                                                                        7
                        NORTH DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL

           DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29TH APRIL 2003

                                       SITE VISIT




MOTCOMBE (41)

Location: Turnpike Showground,                   Ref No: 2/2003/0116
MOTCOMBE                                         Case Officer: Mr A Williams

Applicant: Gillingham & Shaftesbury

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect pavilion (including halls, meeting room, office, reception, kitchen,
bar, toilets and stores), modify vehicular access to Turnpike Road and create car
parking

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: The Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Society show site
on the Turnpike Show Ground lies on the north side of the B3081 Gillingham to
Shaftesbury Road, immediately to the north east of the junction with the Motcombe
Road, behind the Turnpike Boarding Kennels. The application field has an area of
14.57 hectares.

It is proposed to erect a “showground pavilion” building. This building would have
maximum dimensions of 52.5metres by 19metres, and total height of 13.5metres.
The building would provide a permanent home for the Society offices and other
facilities and to entertain guests and members and important visitors in a more
appropriate setting. The building would incorporate the show office and ticketing
facilities, which are currently placed in Gillingham. The main ring would be relocated
in a more central position on the site.

Design Concept: The building is sited towards the north side of the show ring so that
if faces south and can use glazed areas to help with passive solar heat gain. It is
also located close to the parking area which will be served from existing accesses
onto the Motcombe Road. The proposed building is of a traditional design in this
rural area where it is proposed to serve an agricultural society and agricultural show.
The building will be of an aisled barn, the roof will be covered over with plain tiles, the
long walls and gables possibly constructed of Shaftesbury Greensand. The interior
will be of timber barn appearance. Large doors will be provided at each end to allow
agricultural machinery to be brought in side and also connection to marquees if
required.

Parking and Access: Eighty spaces are proposed for the building; there is sufficient
room on site for additional parking. Access is proposed by the Turnpike junction onto
the Motcombe Road.


                                                                                         8
Landscape: A small area of hard landscaping between the new pavilion and the ring
is proposed, together with a small amount of screen planting to break up the car park
for a backdrop to the building.

Proposed Use and Activities: The applicants state that it is essential for the show
ground to have a permanent pavilion from which additional activities could be run
throughout the year. As the showground is only used one day a year, the applicants
state that it makes sense to make better use of the ground with facilities which will
benefit the local community. This would provide the show office with a permanent
home. The Gillingham and Shaftesbury Agricultural Show is a major showcase
bringing the countryside to the urban population and acting as a sound educational
vehicle. The summer fair is also a major tourist attraction and a permanent building
will enhance the development of the site for further events, which will attract
additional tourists and cater for existing tourism needs. There is a need for a facility
in this area to be used by local groups, for educational and economic activities and
partnerships.

Objectives of Proposed Development

   To enhance the existing showground in order to put it into the top tier of dedicated
    show grounds in the South West;
   To provide a conferencing/educational facility to cover predominantly rural issues
    and become a centre of excellence;
   To provide a facility that can be used by the communities of Gillingham,
    Shaftesbury and Motcombe;
   To run the pavilion in partnership with groups who have a need for such a facility
    for economic and educational purpose in the area.

Applicant’s further justification for Proposed Development:

   The Society has been in existence for approximately 90 years and the show is a
    source of pride to both rural and urban communities of North Dorset. The show is
    a showcase for North Dorset Agricultural rural activity. It brings people and
    investment into North Dorset.
   The show’s survival is precarious. It generally occurs on one day per year. If it
    rains, this could be a financial catastrophe.
   The new building would give the show financial stability as it will then not be
    reliant on one day’s activities as its only source of income.
   The show’s offices for enquiries, ticketing and secretary are currently
    inappropriately located in inadequate accommodation in Gillingham. The run up
    to the show necessitates up to 10 trips per day between the Gillingham office and
    the temporary showground office. The new pavilion would give an impressive and
    professional appearance.
   Vocational training courses would be run by the Dorset College of Agriculture and
    Salisbury College. The countryside courses have to be located in the country.
    There are no similar educational facilities available in North Dorset.

Applicant’s Justification for Pavilion to be at the Showground site as opposed to
within towns:

   This is an agricultural show; its facilities should be in the country not in the town.
   This is an existing showground site, equi-distant between the two towns.


                                                                                             9
   Facilities provided by this application proposal are unavailable in the towns. For
    example, tents could be pitched, heavy horse societies cannot meet in towns, this
    venue is ideal for small meetings of all kinds of agriculture and rural activities.
   Vehicular access and parking facilities will not cause congestion in the towns.
   Activities provided by this proposal will not compete with existing facilities in
    Shaftesbury and Gillingham, but will enhance business in both towns by creating
    additional promotional activity, accommodation, retail sales, catering, etc.

Support for proposed development:

 The Agents claim there is Government support for this type of development.
 The Agents provide a long list of bodies who support the proposed development
  and state that they will use its facilities. These include:
 Regional Government Support:
  Government Office of the South West
  The South West of England Rural Development Agency – who run the Rural
  Initiative
  DEFRA – who run the Rural Enterprise Scheme
 Local Support:
  Head of NDDC Economic Development has written saying that NDDC should give
  this project full support. It complies with all social and economic policies and
  should be recommended for approval
  The local MP
  The local MEP
  The Dorset Federation of Women’s Institutes
  The National Farmer’s Union
  North Dorset District Scout Council
  Dorset Federation of Young Farmers Clubs
  Kingston Maurward College
  The Countryside Alliance
  Gillingham and Shaftesbury Young Farmer’s Club
  Shaftesbury Saxon Venture Scouts Unit
  Gillingham Brownies and Guides
  Blackmore Vale Farm
  Symonds & Sampson Auctioneers and Valuers

A list of prospective users and uses is attached in Appendix A.

Planning Policy:

Structure Plan Policies:
S.I Development in the countryside should be permitted only where a location is
essential
C.B Provision should be made for retention and improvement of local services and
facilities for the community, including those relating to education, health, sport,
recreation and culture
C.C Provision should be made for the development of countryside facilities
compatible with the character of the rural environment
T.A Development for tourism and recreation which would contribute to regeneration
and/or the extension of the tourist season should be encouraged….
EN.F The quality and diversity of the Dorset landscape should be maintained and
enhanced….


                                                                                    10
North Dorset Local Plan Policies:
Policy 1.1 Sustainable Development Strategy
 Major development should be in towns
 Major development should incorporate initiatives to reduce travel by car
 Development should not harm areas of amenity value
Policy 1.6 Development in the Countryside – most forms of development for general
needs will not be permitted. However, the following uses may be granted permission
subject to the relevant policy and assessment criteria:
 development required for agriculture
 development for local needs
 countryside tourism
 countryside recreation
 infrastructure (eg roads)
Policy 1.8 Standard Assessment Criteria – includes strategy and other policies,
character, amenity, design and external appearance of buildings, use of the
countryside, vehicular access and parking, transport network, provision of
infrastructure.
Policy 3.1 Overall Employment Strategy – part of the policy states that: “Additional
sites may be allowed in the rural priority area where development would: sustain the
economic base of the area, provide a range of employment opportunities, not result
in overriding harm to landscape quality and amenity, not give rise to unacceptable
increase in traffic to and from the site”.
This area of North Dorset lies within the rural priority area.
Policy 3.28 Development of tourist attractions states that proposals for development
or extension of tourist facilities and attractions will be granted planning permission
unless:
 The proposal is out of character and scale with area
 Location is unsuitable for increased number of visitors
 Local road network is unsuitable
Policy 1.31 Landscape character areas: development should be situated and
designed so as to integrate with the distinctive landscape character of the area
Policy 4.1 Provision of a specialised education, health and other community service
developments will be located in the main towns
Policy 4.2 Land required for educational use (specified sites within main towns)
Policy 4.3 New community buildings, village halls and libraries (specified sites within
main towns)

Relevant Planning History: The Gillingham and Shaftesbury show field is
predominantly used for the main agricultural show which is a one day show, which
has taken place in August on this site since 1993. There is also a summer fair, which
is staged every other year.

Use of the site as a showground (ie on land which is not occupied by buildings)
constitutes permitted development under the provisions of the General Permitted
Development Order, provided it is not used for more than 28 days in any one
calendar year for such use.

Consultations:

Motcombe Parish Council (area within which the application site lies) – recommends
refusal. Scale of building is out of proportion in the proposed location on this
showground. Large inconsistencies between the application and the business plan,
particularly regarding traffic movement. Traffic potentially generated would cause
                                                                                     11
difficulties at the junction of Turnpike Road, the B3081 and through the village of
Motcombe. Neighbouring and residential properties are likely to be adversely
affected by increase in noise pollution from public address systems and to
disturbance of animals at nearby kennels. Serious doubts about the viability of the
commercial proposal, which in order to fill the stated need, would have to generate a
significant income. This application is a major change of use from a once per year
show to a major daily usage likely affect on viability of Motcombe Village Hall.

Shaftesbury Town Council – No objection, but detailed design of the building and
materials to be used must be given careful consideration in order that the
development does not have an adverse impact on strategic views (Castle Hill or
immediate locality).

Gillingham Town Council – No objections

County Highway Officer – Requires further details regarding likely traffic movements
and means and measures to control amount of traffic. Awaits further information
from the applicants. Advice is that the Highway Authority’s consideration comprises
of two main issues: Is the junction at Turnpike with the B3081 suitable to cater for the
increase in vehicular movements the proposal will generate? If not, can a new
junction be formed safely? Comments that the broad scope of the proposal makes it
difficult for an accurate assessment of potential traffic movements to be made. The
projection of possible site uses ranges from annual events attracting a 1000 vehicles
a day to uses attracting between 10 and 25 vehicles.

Recent meetings between the applicants and Highway Officers indicate that there is
likely to be no highway objection PROVIDED: the application is specifically for the
use of the building only and not for any use of the showground site; any use of the
adjacent open land is subject to a Section 106 Agreement where any use requires
the prior agreement of the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with the Local
Highway Authority. Therefore, on the basis that activities associated with uses taking
place within the building can be both contained and enforced against, traffic
generation associated with use of the building alone will be to an acceptable level.

Policy Manager (Rural Economy) – Supports the application which represents an
exciting opportunity to provide a high quality asset for the district. Falls within the
Councils priorities and would create an attractive facility to make better use of the
existing show ground and provide an opportunity to accommodate other activities and
training; several colleges have already expressed an interest. This will be
complimentary to the provision of facilities in Gillingham and will create an asset to
the whole district.

Representations:

Support from MP and MEP, who believes that the proposed development would
enhance the Show Ground. It is essentially an agricultural development, which would
help to stimulate the rural economy. Many other letters of support.
Objections from local residents: The proposed building and change of use set in
undeveloped countryside is adjacent to historic Listed Buildings of Manor Farm. The
proposal is at variance with planning policy and also adversely affects settings of
Listed Buildings and residential amenities. It is contrary to national planning policy as
set out in PPG7, which states that the countryside should be safeguarded for its own
sake and PPG15, which places a duty on Planning Authorities to protect and
conserve Listed Buildings – their interest, character and setting. Contrary to Local
                                                                                      12
Plan Policy 1.1, which states the character of the countryside as a key resource and
its protection, is one of the key components of the Local Plan strategy. Sustainable
Development Strategy identifies the main towns as the local service centres where
employment and community facilities should be concentrated. Inadequate vehicular
access and transport network (access is off a small Class 3 road onto a Class 2 road
network) and not onto a primary traffic route. The proposed change of use would
involve significant levels of activity throughout the year, which will be detrimental to
the Standard Assessment Criteria in Policy 1.8. Contrary to Policy 1.1 – Sustainable
Development Strategy, which states that development in the countryside beyond
defined settlement boundaries, will not be permitted. The application objectives can
be met by other means: e.g. conference and educational facilities within towns to
avoid development of the countryside and additional traffic, e.g. use of existing
school facilities during holidays. This proposal may undermine existing local
facilities, e.g. Motcombe Village Hall and threaten viability of existing businesses, e.g.
associated with catering for Wedding Receptions. Business Plan is incompatible with
the major emphasis on educational needs and hence the proposed development
would be totally contrary to planning policies for protecting the valuable local
countryside and local amenities.

Planning Appraisal: The key issues are:

1. Is there sufficient justification to permit a new building for the uses proposed
   within a location subject to countryside policies?

2. Does the proposal have an acceptable impact in the countryside, with regard to;
   visual appearance and character, highway safety and convenience implications,
   effect on residential amenities of local occupiers?

The planning policies listed above are those which Officers consider to be the most
relevant and the applicants argue the proposed scheme is in accordance with:
Policy 1.1 – Sustainable Development Strategy. Although seeking the larger forms of
development to be located in the larger towns also seeks to ensure that they are well
related to existing forms of development, integrated transport network, particularly
public transport; incorporating initiatives to reduce the needs of travel – of road
parking should be to appropriate maximum accepted levels; best possible use of
resources to avoid excessive environmental impact.
The applicants state that this site is located approximately halfway between
Shaftesbury and Gillingham on the main transport route between the two towns on an
existing site used for show purposes and meets the requirements of this policy.

Policy 1.6 – Development in the Countryside – states that most forms of development
will not be permitted. However, uses, which may be permitted, may include:
Development required for agriculture; Development for local employment needs;
Countryside tourism; Countryside recreation. The applicants believe that the
proposed usage falls within the realms of the above criteria, which justifies such a
development, particularly when there are no other suitable sites for such
development elsewhere, not just within the towns, but within the district as a whole.

Policy 3.1 – Overall Development Strategy – states that additional sites may be
allowed in the rural priority area where development would: broaden and sustain an
economic base, provide large range of employment opportunities, not result in
overriding harm to landscape quality and amenity, not give rise to unacceptable
increase in traffic: The main case of the applicants is that this development will be
eligible to grant aid due to the, bringing in additional inward investment from both
                                                                                       13
Central Government and European funding and would move towards achieving the
aims of the Local Plan with regard to needs for diversification within the agricultural
industry, strengthening the existing use of the show ground and enhancing the
economic benefit to the district by way of enhancing employment and tourism.

Policy 3.28 – Development of tourist attractions – states that proposals for the
development or extension of tourist facilities and attractions will be granted
permission subject to meeting criteria relating to the character, design, scale,
capacity to cater increased number of visitors, appropriate capacity of local road
network, including access by viable public transport systems. The applicants argue
that their development meets these criteria.

Policy 1.8 – Standard Assessment Criteria – this policy is applicable to all
development proposals. The applicants state that the proposed building is a good
quality design, scale, materials and appearance, far away from the closest residential
properties that there would be no material adverse affect on their amenities: it would
compliment the countryside, vehicular access and parking would meet Highway
requirements, a good transport network exist being located immediately off the
Shaftesbury-Gillingham road with good links to primary routes in the County.

The applicants also argue that the proposed development meets the objectives of
Policies 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3, which generally seek community and educational buildings,
within the towns. However, their case is that such provision for the specific activities
which are likely to take place, would never be provided in the towns and this proposal
therefore gives North Dorset the only opportunity to have a viable site and building
which can cater for the wider educational, cultural and community needs, which North
Dorset currently does not have.

Generally, countryside policies seek to resist new development, to that which has to
go in the countryside e.g. agricultural buildings or where there is a special need and
justification for such development, which would otherwise not be provided within the
recognised limits of a settlement. In this case, the applicants are stating that their
proposed development meets the requirements or spirit of planning policy.
Moreover, it also provides facilities in a countryside setting, where use can be made
of outside open space which would fulfil the requirements of other policies (namely
educational, economic tourism, recreation and community), but would otherwise not
be provided within a settlement. In other words, the proposed development would
provide a much needed facility which cannot be met by other means and therefore
would not be provided elsewhere.

Is there sufficient justification for the need of the building to warrant its location in the
countryside and unattached to a large town?
The applicants are stating that this will provide a countryside facility, very closely
allied to agriculture, which is not currently being provided within the District. Officers
perceive that it may be a mini Royal Bath & West Show Ground. The applicants
have provided a long list of potential users, and there is significant support.
However, Officers consider that the justification has to be that the facilities it can
provide will never be able to be accommodated within a town. A main part of the
applicant’s case for the proposed development would appear to be that there is no
similar establishment currently existing within Dorset. Officers identify the main areas
of justification as being in relation to (agriculture) – the displaying of agricultural
equipment and activities in an open – and barn-like setting, where there is a strong
relationship between the outside and inside space. Examples are given. The
pavilion building could be used by groups who want to make use of the site for other
                                                                                          14
outdoor activities: Horse Shows, Agricultural Shows, Sporting fixtures, Craft Fairs,
rural study centre to enable interested groups and organisations to study flora and
fauna and to promote an understanding of the local environment and agriculture.
These would appear to be users who could readily benefit from the integrated use of
a permanent building and significant open space.

Many (if not all) of the letters of support from the interested prospective users
currently operate from existing premises in the district, mainly within towns, including
Women’s Institutes, Young Farmers, Scouts and Guides, Auctioneers. Although
such a venue would apparently be to the benefit of many of these organisations, the
question has to be asked, would it be in accordance with planning policy to allow
these apparently existing settlement based uses to be based in the countryside?
Your officers do not consider this to be the case.

Members should note that following a recent meeting between the applicants and
Highway Authority, officers would not have a highway objection if the application
were to be specifically for the building and not for (ancillary) uses on the showground
field. If this were to be the case, there would be no apparent interrelationship
between the building and the showground site. Accordingly the proposed building
could not accord with countryside or related policies.

Justification for pavilion to be on this site:
The applicants state that this is currently an existing agricultural showground site,
equi-distant between the two towns. The facilities provided by this application are
unavailable in the towns. Vehicular access and car parking can be provided to an
acceptable standard and will not cause congestion in the towns. The Highway
Officer accepts the principle of development, accessed off Turnpike Road. Local
residents, although relatively few in number, express genuine concerns about
increased traffic, noise and disturbance through general usage, and more specific
sources of noise relating to public address systems, noisy activities (crowds,
cheering) within an area where existing noise levels are particularly low. Local
residents consider that there would be an unacceptably material adverse affect on
their residential amenities.
The site in its current form is open to view, particularly from the B3081 and the
Turnpike (Motcombe) Road. The use envisaged would be on a frequent basis.

The proposed building would be of significant size and would be imposing in the
landscape. It will significantly change the character of what is currently an open area
and for most of the year is unoccupied other than by animals. The applicants, in
recognising the implications regarding visual impact have sought a well designed
building of good quality materials and rural appearance, which they feel will stand as
a landmark building of quality and will compliment the landscape. The permanent car
parking area will be behind the building so that it is not readily visible. Specific
measures would have to be taken to ensure the orderly management of the site and
to minimise any further impact in the landscape, or unacceptable detriment to the
amenities or causes a nuisance to local residents, e.g. through use of public address
systems, hours of operation, etc. Car parking would have to be tightly controlled,
both from a highway safety perspective and also with regard to impact and visual
appearance in the landscape. Members should note that the County Highway Officer
would not object provided the application relates specifically to the building and the
traffic generated by its specific uses and not to ancillary or other uses on the
showfield.

Summary/Conclusion:
                                                                                        15
The proposal is unacceptable for the following reasons:
 Sufficient justification of need has not been established to warrant a
   recommendation of approval to be granted for this significant building and use in
   an otherwise open rural location in an area subject to countryside policies. It
   would appear that a large majority of the prospective uses currently carry out their
   normal activities within buildings and sites in main settlements ie in sustainable
   locations which meet planning policy requirements. Furthermore, the Highway
   Authority only find the proposal acceptable if the application site is restricted
   solely to that of the building (besides associated car parking). The proposed
   development would then be for a stand alone building which could be unrelated to
   the open site of the showground, which in the countryside setting, unrelated to
   surrounding land would not justify the erection of a new building.
 The Highway Authority may be satisfied with highway arrangements, but only as
   follows: The County Highway Officer has recently indicated that he would be likely
   to raise no objections to a development which is for the building only and subject
   to a Section 106 Agreement which ensures that there will be no associated uses
   between the building and showground, that if there is any adjacent use of land, it
   shall require prior agreement with the Local Planning Authority in conjunction with
   the Local Highway Authority. If the application is amended on these grounds, no
   highway objections would be raised.
 The proposed development need not unreasonably affect the amenities of local
   residents. In an area where ambient noise levels and activities are low at the
   present time it is likely that the use of the building and associated car park would
   have a significant impact on the otherwise normally quiet character of the area.
   However, if uses are restricted to the building it is considered unlikely that the
   change in amenities to local residents would be such that there would be an
   unacceptable detriment.
 The building and associated car parking and access would have a significant
   visual impact in the landscape due to its bulk and height on a flat, prominent open
   piece of ground readily viewed from surrounding land and highways. Therefore it
   is considered that the development would cause unacceptable harm to the
   character and visual amenities of the countryside and to the quality of the
   landscape.

Recommendation:

REFUSE PERMISSION
1 The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there is sufficient justification to
   warrant the erection of the building for the uses and activities envisaged, where in
   order to meet the requirements of the Highway Authority it will have to operate in
   normal circumstances separately from the use of the showground site. The
   proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies 1.1, 1.6,
   1.8, 3.1, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the adopted North Dorset Local Plan and Policy S.I of
   the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan.
2 In the absence of an accepted special justification for the need for this building
  and associated car parking to be sited on this open and prominent site in the
  countryside, the proposed development is considered to be harmful to the
  distinctive open and undeveloped character of the area. The proposed
  development is therefore considered to be contrary to policies 1.1, 1.31 and 1.8 of
  the adopted North Dorset District Council Local Plan and EN.F of the
  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan.



                                                                                      16
                       NORTH DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL

           DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29TH APRIL 2003

                                      SITE VISIT


SHAFTESBURY (45)

Location: Part garden of St Giles,             Ref No: 2/2002/1161
Shooters Lane, St James, SHAFTESBURY           Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Adams

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect dwelling (demolish garage and storage building).

Conservation Area: Shaftesbury

Description of Site:
The site comprises approx. 0.1ha (0.25 acre) of land, towards the foot of Shooters
Lane, upon which presently stands a domestic garage. There is an adjacent vehicular
access direct to the lane and thence to nearby Layton Lane. The access would serve
both existing and proposed dwellings. The site is within both the settlement boundary
and the Conservation Area. The proposed dwelling is a small two - bedroomed
“period” stone cottage positioned such that the south-east facing gable wall would be
built as part of the existing stone wall alongside the lane. It measures 9.3m x 5.85m x
6.5m (high). The existing garage, which would be demolished, is of no particular
architectural merit, and does not make a positive contribution to the character of the
Conservation Area.

Planning Policy:
Strucure Plan: SD, SH, ENF,ENQ.
District Local Plan: 1.1, 1.2, 17, 1.8, 1.14, 1.15, 1.24, 1.25, SB3, SB4
        Policy SB3 reads thus:
        i)     development which would reduce or urbanise the distinct rural
               character of the Slopes will not be permitted. Development will only be
               allowed if it can be shown that the proposal is in keeping with the
               character of the area and will not adversely affect views from higher or
               lower ground.
        ii)    SB4 – New development will only be permitted where the design and
               location of the proposal strengthens local character. Development
               which masks the dramatic effect of the topography or adversely affects
               views from higher or lower ground will not be permitted.

Relevant Planning History: None.

Consultations:
Town Council: Objection. Grounds: proposed development is contrary to “The
Slopes” policy (policy SB3).
Highway Authority: No objection in principle subject to conditions.
Wessex Water: No objection in principle subject to conditions.

                                                                                     17
D.C.C. Rights of Way Officer: No objection in principle provided that the adjacent
public footpath is not obstructed at any time.
Conservation Officer: Comments awaited.
Shaftesbury Civic Society: No objections, provided that the drainage system/s have
been upgraded (in connection with the Mitre Inn development).

Representations:
Three letters from local residents.
One objection. Grounds: i) harm to setting/importance of the existing house.
                           ii) loss of rural character of the lane.
                           iii) could set precedent for more development.
                           iv) policy should negate further development.
One letter of qualified support. No objection subject to satisfactory access, building
materials and drainage.
One letter of unqualified support.

Planning Appraisal:

1. This site lies within the settlement boundary of the town and is well related to
     other dwellings in the immediate locality. Thus, there is a firm presumption in
     favour of further development provided that:
  i)      such development is entirely appropriate in all material respects (to comply
          with policy 1.8 in particular)
ii)     there is no encroachment of development into previously undeveloped areas
          of open land (Policy SB3).

2. With regard to Policy SB3, firstly, Officers consider that this site lies on the
   relatively flat land at the foot of the steep escarpment between St James and the
   town centre, and that the proposed development would not constitute
   encroachment. Secondly, the site is already developed by reason of the existing
   garage building and by reason of its use as a domestic garden. Thirdly, and most
   importantly, the recently completed housing development on land immediately to
   the south-east, was granted planning permission by this Authority, after an earlier
   refusal had been allowed on appeal. In terms of their locations relative to the
   slopes policy area, the new housing development and this application site are
   identical. Therefore, Officers are satisfied that the proposal is not contrary to
   policy SB3.

3. With regard to the merits of the proposed cottage, the architect has now amended
   the original plans to address Officers initial concerns over several aspects of the
   design. The roof pitch has been increased to 35 degrees (to enable small plain
   clay tiles to be used), and the chimney stack is now internal and forms part of the
   gable wall elevation facing the lane. The overall siting, orientation, size, design,
   appearance and materials proposed for the cottage have been carefully
   assessed, and Officers conclude that the development is suitably modest and
   appropriate for this part of the Conservation Area. There would be no net loss of
   character to the Conservation Area, nor would any loss of amenity occur in
   respect of the adjacent dwellings. The proposed cottage would itself have a small
   but adequate garden, neither of which would be directly overlooked. The wall
   alongside Shooters Lane would give a reasonable degree of privacy from the
   public footpath. In these respects the proposal accords with policy 1.24
   (Character of Conservation Areas).



                                                                                         18
4. Whilst the question of precedent has been raised there are few, unprotected
   areas of land in St James, which could be suitable for further residential
   development. Any that might come forward would of course be subject to a
   planning application/s which would be assessed on merit, irrespective of any
   claims about precedents having been set elsewhere. Officers do not believe that
   an approval would compromise the Authority’s ability to deal objectively with any
   other similar proposal.

  5. No objections have been raised by Wessex Water concerning the foul and
   surface water drainage, nor has the Highway Authority raised any objections on
   road safety grounds. Appropriate conditions are recommended for to ensure that
   both matters are addressed to the satisfaction of the Authority. The provision of
   adequate drainage is also a statutory Building Regulations requirement.

6. In the event of a favourable decision a Legal Undertaking would be required to
   secure the requisite financial contribution towards local Community Infrastructure
   provision, together with conditions necessary to ensure satisfactory development.

Recommendation:

Approve (as amended by drgs. 2502-2A and 3A) subject to the following conditions:

  i)       a satisfactory legal undertaking to secure the requisite SPG contribution
           towards Community Infrastructure provision;

1.    Commencement (Full Permission)
2.    Prior written approval of details
3.    Materials (notwithstanding details submitted)
4.    Brick bond/stone coursing
5.    No windows
6.    Details of fences etc
7.    Hard surfaces
8.    Foul & surface water drainage
9.    Access, turning, garaging, parking provision
10.   No gates

      NOTE: In the interests of highway safety, provision shall be made to ensure that
      no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway.




                                                                                       19
NORTH DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL

DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29TH APRIL 2003

SITE VISIT



SHAFTESBURY (45)

Location: Part garden of St Giles,             Ref No: 2/2002/9181
Shooters Lane, St James, SHAFTESBURY           Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: Mr & Mrs P Adams

Application Type: Conservation Area Consent

Proposal: Demolish timber storage building and stone garage.

Conservation Area: Shaftesbury

Description of Site:
The site comprises approx. 0.1ha (0.25 acre) of land, towards the foot of Shooters
Lane, upon which presently stands a domestic garage. There is an adjacent vehicular
access direct to the lane and thence to nearby Layton Lane. The access would serve
both existing and proposed dwellings. The site is within both the settlement boundary
and the Conservation Area. The proposed dwelling is a small two-bedroom “period”
stone cottage positioned such that the south-east facing gable wall would be built as
part of the existing stone wall alongside the lane. It measures 9.3m x 5.85m x 6.5m
(high). The existing garage, which would be demolished, is of no particular
architectural merit, and does not make a positive contribution to the character of the
Conservation Area.

Planning Policy:
Structure Plan: SH, ENF,ENQ.
District Local Plan: 17, 1.8, 1.24, 1.25, SB3, SB4
        Policy SB3 reads thus:
        i)     Development which would reduce or urbanise the distinct rural
               character of the Slopes will not be permitted. Development will only be
               allowed if it can be shown that the proposal is in keeping with the
               character of the area and will not adversely affect views from higher or
               lower ground.
        ii)    SB4 – New development will only be permitted where the design and
               location of the proposal strengthens local character. Development
               which masks the dramatic effect of the topography or adversely affects
               views from higher or lower ground will not be permitted.

Relevant Planning History: None.

Consultations:
Town Council: Objection. Grounds: proposed development is contrary to “The
Slopes” policy (policy SB3).
Conservation Officer: Comments awaited.

                                                                                     20
Shaftesbury Civic Society: No objections, provided that the drainage system/s have
been upgraded (in connection with the Mitre Inn development).

Representations:
Three letters from local residents.
One objection. Grounds: i) harm to setting/importance of the existing house.
                           ii) loss of rural character of the lane.
                           iii) could set precedent for more development.
                           iv) policy should negate further development.
One letter of qualified support. No objection subject to satisfactory access,
building materials and drainage.
One letter of unqualified support.

Planning Appraisal:

The existing garage, which would be demolished, is of no particular architectural
merit, and does not make a positive contribution to the character of the Conservation
Area (and see appraisal for PA 2/2002/1161{45}).

Recommendation: Approve (as amended by drgs. 2502-2A and 3A) subject to the
following conditions:

1. Commencement (Listed Building & Conservation Area)




                                                                                   21
             DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE 29 APRIL 2003


BLANDFORD FORUM (03)

Location: Adj. 2 Damory Street/rear of 6        Ref No: 2/2003/0206
East Street, BLANDFORD                          Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Wellstead

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect dwelling

Conservation Area: Blandford Forum, Blandford St Mary & Bryanston

Description of Site:

Planning Policy: District Wide Local Plan Policies 1.1, 1.8, 1.24, 2.6, 2.10 and 5.7.
Structure Plan Policies S.D, S.H, EN.H, EN.Q, H.C, H.G and I.D.

Relevant Planning History:
02/0134 – Erect dwelling and access. Refused on grounds of overshadowing,
overbearing, design, inadequate turning area.
94/0813 – Erect dwelling. Granted planning permission (lapsed).

Consultations:
Town Council – Objection, overdevelopment.

County Archaeological Officer – No objection, conditional archaeological observations
and recording to take place during groundworks.

Highways Officer – Concern re lack of turning facilities.

Representations:
4 objections – would affect neighbours vehicular access and parking space,
overshadowing, prevent access for maintenance, overbearing, noise, disturbance,
dangerous access.

Planning Appraisal:
This resubmission of a revised application seeks to address objections to the last
application that was refused permission.

The fundamental differences are:

A reduction in size of the dwelling, 1½ storeys, but with a single storey element at the
rear;
Relocation of the building towards the front of the plot, adjacent to the road;
Cottage style detailing in brickwork under a tiled roof;
Retention of a parking space for the adjacent property (as before), but no off street
provision for the dwelling.

This scheme is now almost identical to that which was granted permission in 1994.
The dwelling, repositioned at the front and reduced in height would not overshadow
nor overbear the adjacent property to an unacceptable degree being a little distance
away from it.

The access is as existing for the adjacent property. The Highways Officer raises
concern about the retention of this access as reversing vehicles could present danger
to road users. There is no parking requirement for the proposed dwelling in this town
centre location, as it is in proximity to the town centre where alternative means of
transport are available.

The design and use of materials would lead to an enhancement of the Conservation
Area. It would replace fences and walling, creating enclosure and contributing to the
built up street scene.

Therefore, in view of the above, the Officer considers the proposals are acceptable.
There is concern by the Highways Officer, but this relates to an existing vehicular
access, which is in use by the adjacent property rather than this proposed dwelling.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission, subject to a Section 106 agreement
contribution of £2,150.00.

1.   Commencement (Full Permission)
2.   Prior Written approval of details
3.   Materials (scheme Approval)
4.   Details of fences etc
5.   PD Rights exclusion extensions
6.   Archaeological observations & recording
7.   Highway conditions

        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLANDFORD ST MARY (04)

Location: The Old School House,                            Ref No: 2/2002/0211
Bournemouth Road, BLANDFORD ST                             Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers
MARY

Applicant: Quadrant Estates

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: (Demolish old school house) erect retail store, garden centre, create car
park and service area, carry out landscaping

Conservation Area: Blandford Forum, Blandford St Mary & Bryanston



                                                                                                        2
Deferred from: 8 April 2003

Reason for deferral: For negotiation on design and consideration of conditions,
following resolution to permit application contrary to officer recommendation.

Update:
Officers have held negotiations with the agents and will present new information at
the meeting. Artwork will be incorporated into the fabric of the building to
commemorate the old School.

In response to the consultations, the Senior Public Transport Co-ordinators at Dorset
County Council has requested provision of the applicants of a bus service to the new
store. Members should consider whether this is required. Members should also
consider the comments made by the Dorset Cyclists’ Network.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission

1. Before development commences, detailed drawings of the community artwork to
    commemorate the Old School Building shall be submitted to and approved by the
    Local Planning Authority. The artwork shall be completed to the satisfaction of the
    Local Planning Authority.
    Reason: In the interest of amenity and to commemorate the Old School Building
    in the Conservation Area.
 2. Before the commencement of building works a scheme showing precise details of
    the construction and finish of the cladding of the walls, roof and fenestration shall
    be submitted to the Local Planning Authority. Any such scheme shall require
    approval to be obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.
    Reason: To safeguard the character of the locality in accordance with Settlement
    Policy H, Environment Policies F and H and Implementation Policies A and D of
    the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policies 1.8 of the North
    Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).
3. Programme of archaeological works
4. Foul & surface water drainage
5. Floor levels
6. Landscape design proposals
7. Details of fences etc
8. The goods sold shall consist of DIY, hardware, decorative goods, flooring, garden
    and horticultural goods and ancillary products to these categories only.
    Reason: To safeguard the vitality of the town centre and in accordance with
    Policy 3.19 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).
9. The maximum floor space for retail purposes shall not exceed 1,999 sq m (gross)
    inside the building and a garden centre of 594 sq m (gross) outside the building.
    Reason: To safeguard the vitality of the town centre and in accordance with
    Policies 3.19, 1.8 and 1.24 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First
    Revision).
10. Highway conditions as advised by County Highway Officer.

1. INFORMATIVE: The drainage scheme should demonstrate how roof water will be
   re-cycled within the garden centre. It is indicated on the application form that
   surface water will be directed to a highway drain. The Environment Agency


                                                                                        3
    recommends that a sustainable drainage option is considered, such as the use of
    infiltration. If this is not feasible, then before reaching the highway drain there
    must be attenuation measures such as a balancing pond or tank sewer, and the
    run-off from a 1 in 100 year storm should be reduced to the equivalent run-off
    from a 1 in 1 year storm on a green-field site. The parking areas must drain via
    petrol interceptors which should be shown on the drainage scheme.

2. INFORMATIVE: The developer is required to protect the integrity of Wessex
   Water systems and agree prior to the commencement of works on site, any
   arrangements for the protection of infrastructure crossing the site.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

APPENDIX FOR 8 APRIL 2003

BLANDFORD ST MARY (04)

Location: The Old School House,                              Ref No: 2/2002/0211
Bournemouth Road, BLANDFORD ST                               Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers
MARY

Applicant: Quadrant Estates

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: (Demolish old school house) erect retail store, garden centre, create car
park and service area, carry out landscaping

Conservation Area: Blandford Forum, Blandford St Mary & Bryanston

Description of Site: The site is approximately .63 hectares situated adjacent to the
Stour Park development at Blandford St Mary. The land is roughly square with
frontages to the service road to Stour Park and Bournemouth Road. The land is
currently vacant. The land slopes gently from north to south and is lower than the two
roads next to it. The former school building is situated in the west corner of the site.
It consists of a traditional mid-19th Century building with modern flat roof extensions.
It is unoccupied. The site is also bounded by School Lane and residential properties
to the west and the brewery premises to the north. Access utilises an unfinished exit
from the roundabout to the east of the site.

Planning Policy: Local Plan Policy E/2/4 Employment Site, BL2, 1.8, 1.24, 1.25, 3.2,
3.3, 3.4, 3.19. Structure Plan Policies S.C, S.H, E.A, E.B, TR.B, EN.H, EN.Q, I.A, I.B,
I.D, and I.E.

Relevant Planning History: None

Consultations:

Wessex Water – informative to protect the integrity of systems.



                                                                                                                   4
County Archaeologist – condition requiring a programme of archaeological work prior
to groundworks.
Economic Development (Rural Economy) – Detailed comment including whether the
store would have an adverse affect on trade in the town centre and availability of
adequate employment land and commercial floor space.
Blandford St Mary Parish Council – Object. Garden centre needed. Over-
development. Materials inappropriate. Additional traffic. If above matters addressed
would have no objections. Also felt a substantial donation to the village hall should be
made. No objection to Council’s retail impact appraisal.
Environment Agency – No objection conditional – surface water drainage.
Dorset Cyclists Network – Detailed comments including recommendation for a green
transport plan for staff/customers to have safe, secure and convenient parking and a
contribution to enable a safe cycle link between Spetisbury and Blandford.
Civic Society – Would undoubtedly affect retail units in the town and the industrial
estates. Old school should be restored and incorporated into the scheme. Object to
demolition. Design out of keeping.
Technical Services – No objection conditional on levels and drainage.
Dorset Wildlife Trust – Presence of bats should be checked. May lead to loss of
foraging area. Recommends native planting around site.
Blandford Chamber of Trade & Commerce – Harm to vitality of town centre. Would
compete with at least 8 businesses in the town. Alternative sites available in the town
centre.
Blandford Town Council – No objection in principle to the proposal for a DIY store
although totally opposed to the design of the building. No objection to Council’s retail
impact appraisal.
Public transport co-ordinates
The store is going to be a generator of traffic for both customers and staff including at
times when there is currently no public transport available in Blandford. Following the
example of the B & Q development in Yeovil I would suggest that we seek some
contribution from the developers of this site to the operation of Sunday services of
benefit to the site operator as a means of bringing staff to the site. These services
would be of more general use to residents of North Dorset.

The B & Q application was a much larger development but has paid for two vehicles
to provide a town service in Yeovil. The Blandford St Mary proposal is smaller and
the most we could ask for would be the provision of a single vehicle. We estimate
that this would cost of the order of £200 per day before revenue and support should
be for a minimum of three years.

We would suggest a network of services that would offer very basic links from
Blandford to Sturminster Newton and Shaftesbury. This might also assist trade in
those establishments that do currently open in Blandford on a Sunday and offer a link
to the hospital and leisure centre. Connection with existing services to Poole and
Bournemouth and to Weymouth and Salisbury would also be beneficial.

English Heritage – A case that can be determined by the Council. Therefore no
representations to be made.
Conservation Officer – Detailed comments. Does not agree with the conclusions of
the applicant’s report. Existing school building contributes in a positive way to the
character and appearance of the area. The proposed building would not be seen as


                                                                                        5
enhancing the Conservation Area or leaving it unharmed. The diminution in the
spatial characteristics of the locality would be compromised and the cumulative
impact of the repetitious nature, visual bulk and materials would appear visually
discordant. A small amount of landscaping would not reduce to any significant
degree this impact.

Representations: 19 objections. Over-development, threat to trade in town centre,
additional traffic, too near to housing and supermarket, loss of old school building,
new building would be harmful to character and appearance of area, activities and the
building would be noisy, alterations to sewerage system, a contribution should be
made to the town, there would be harm to protected species, the Council’s own
impact report does not include all the premises in the town that would be affected. 2
letters of support. Proposal is sustainable, would create employment and be
convenient.

Planning Appraisal: Description. The proposals are for demolition of the old school
building and erection of a retail unit with floor area of 1,950 square metres. The unit
would be rectangular, occupy the west corner of the site. The building would be
approximately 2 metres from Bournemouth Road at its gable end and the rear of the
building would also be near to School Lane. The garden centre would be formed
outside the building at the north end with an area of 585 square metres within a
fenced compound. The remainder of the site would be used as a car park with 88 car
parking spaces. There would also be a bin store. A service corridor would be formed
to the rear of the garden centre for access to a warehouse within the main building.
The building would be constructed of horizontal silver cladding above brickwork and
metal profiled sheeting for the roof. The garden centre would have glazed screens or
chevron boarded fencing around it. Any retaining walls required, as a result of the
slope of the site would be constructed in brick for the walls. Some parts of the
building would be constructed in split faced reconstituted stone blocks and flint blocks
to create features within the gable and front elevations.

Applicant’s Reports The applicant has provided an historic building impact
assessment report, an employment lands and available commerce floorspace report,
a traffic statement, a planning issues report, a condition survey of the old school and
a Conservation Area impact report. Briefly, the findings of the reports are
summarised below:

Historic Building Impact Assessment The purpose of the report is to provide
information about the origins of the old school building, its architectural and historic
interests and an assessment of the contribution it makes to the special character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. The report concludes that the potential
contribution has been severely compromised by its extensive alteration, its hidden
position and radical changes to its physical and visual context brought about by
recent development around it.

Employment Land and Available Commercial Floorspace This report sets out
comments on existing and future provision and availability, likely levels of demand
and some general comments on Stour Park. It concludes that the town is unlikely to
suffer a shortage of available space over the next planned period. There is sufficient



                                                                                          6
available employment land in Blandford to cater for likely demand during the next
planning period and probably beyond.

Planning Issues Report The report examines the proposed development and the
floor space to be provided, relevant planning policy, DIY retail provision in the
Blandford area, an analysis of planning issues and conclusions. The report therefore
takes into account the sequential test, need and retail impact. It concludes that the
size of the store is the smallest which can physically accommodate a DIY product
range, there are no sequentially preferable sites, the site is well served by public
transport and it would not impact on the town centre.

Traffic Statement This statement concludes that Stour Park link road operates at
65% of theoretical capacity, no reportable accidents have occurred in the vicinity of
the development access, there are good quality pedestrian, cycle and bus links to the
site, it will not impact on the Tesco access and 87 car parking spaces will meet the
likely customer parking demands. It concludes that additional contributions may be
valid in respect of bus services to the site and provision of a formal pedestrian
crossing of the Stour Park link.

Condition Survey The building suffers from extensive defects allowing the building to
become dilapidated. The cost to bring the building back into a state of occupation
would need to be weighed against any intended uses in valued and furbished
property. The proposed cost is £192,000 to bring the building back into reuse.

Analysis of the Impact of the Redevelopment of the Old School House Site
It concludes that the balance of advantage lies in improving the application. The
development would bring forward sustainable benefits which would make a positive
contribution to both the character and appearance of the Conservation Area whilst at
the same time ensure that the undertaking of the area’s historic development is
preserved. The old school itself is no longer viable for re-use. The proposal would
bring local employment to the site. The building is documented and its retention is no
longer required. The school house does not make a positive contribution to the
character and preservation of the Conservation Area.

Reports commissioned by the Council The Council commissioned two independent
reports. The first was an evaluation of retail issues relating to the proposed store and
secondly a structural report on the old school.

Evaluation of retail issues report The report was prepared by Nathaniel Lichfield &
Partners to evaluate the retail issues relating to the planning application and the
applicant’s report addressing the planning issues. The Council report reviewed the
existing facilities in Blandford, the retail need, the sequential approach, the retail
impact and then provides conclusion. Whilst there are a number of units within
Blandford which sell part of the product range of the proposed store, it is likely that
even in aggregate they do not sell the entire product range.

Retail Need This is primarily set out in the response to a Parliamentary question by
the then Planning Minister, Richard Caborn. In his response he stated: “Proposals
which would be located at an edge of centre or out of centre location and which are
not in accordance with an up to date development plan strategy; or are in accordance


                                                                                          7
with the development plan but that plan is out of date, is inconsistent with national
planning policy guidance or otherwise fails to establish adequately the need for new
retail and leisure development and other development to which PPG6 applies; should
be required to demonstrate both the need for additional facilities and that a sequential
approach has been applied in selecting the location or the site.” In advising how the
requirement to demonstrate need should be undertaken, he stated that it: “should not
be regarded as being fulfilled simply by showing that there is capacity or demand for
the proposed development. Whilst the existence of capacity or demand may form
part of the demonstration of need the significance in any particular case of the factors
which may show need will be a matter for the decision maker”. The proposal would
be situated in an out of centre location being approximately 400 metres from the
primary shopping frontages. On this basis, the applicant must demonstrate need.

In assessing the quantitative need for the new store whilst the applicant’s information
of the population available expenditure to support the proposed store is important, it
does not provide an estimate of the total available expenditure for the proposed store.
It is likely that the proposed store will derive the bulk of its turnover from the narrower
categories of DIY/gardening and decorative goods. Accordingly, this would result in
lower level of available expenditure to the store than that achieved by the applicant.
In examining the turnover of existing facilities whilst not fully accepting the
quantitative analysis put forward by the applicant, the Council’s report suggests that
there is a quantitative need for a DIY hardware store within Blandford Forum on the
scale proposed. They also consider that the application proposal would result in a
significant qualitative enhancement to DIY hardware provision in the catchment area
which would in turn reduce the need for residents to travel potentially long distances
to other facilities beyond the catchment area. Therefore, it is concluded that need for
the application proposal has been demonstrated.

Sequential Approach The principle of sequential approach to retail development is
set out in PPG6. “First preference should be for town centre sites, where suitable
sites or buildings suitable for conversion are available, followed by edge-of-centre
sites, district and local centres and only then out-of-centre sites in locations that are
accessible by a choice of means of transport.”
“The Government recognises the need for flexibility and realism from both local
planning authorities, developers and retailers. Developers and retailers are required
specifically to be flexible in terms of the format, design and scale of development and
the amount of car parking required, to suit local circumstances.”
“Wherever there is a clearly defined need for major travel generating uses which
cannot be accommodated in or on the edge of existing centres, it may be appropriate
to combine them with existing out-of-centre development; or negotiate for
improvements to public transport accessibility; and to maximise access by means
other than by car and to increase the ability for single trips to several purposes.”
A number of Government statements have subsequently been released in respect of
the sequential approach. “In applying the sequential approach, the relevant centres
in which to search for sites will depend on the nature and scale of the proposed
development and catchment that the development seeks to serve.”
Further to guidance set out within PPG6 in relation to the format of a development
and the need for flexibility and realism, the Government Select Committee that
considered the Environmental Impact of Supermarket Competition (1999)
commented: “We consider unacceptable an interpretation which defines suitable as


                                                                                         8
meaning suitable for the size of store and format which retailers wish to develop and
which could mean they would seek to develop sizes and forms of stores which could
only be out of town.”
In its response to the above, the DETR (government response) re-stated its
commitment to PPG6 guidance and the need for flexibility on the part of developers
and retailers in respect of new development. Reference was also made to research
on the application of the approach undertaken by the National Retail Planning Forum,
which contrasts two methods taken as follows: “format driven approach, where the
developer has a preferred format, which in their view, does not fit into town centres
and should be exempted from policy; or the class of goods approach where the key
question is whether there is any reason why such goods cannot be sold from town
centres. The Government’s policy, as stated in PPG6, is to take the latter approach,
as most goods can be sold from town centres. PPG6 does not propose exceptions to
the application of the sequential approach.”

Six sites within Blandford Forum were considered before consideration of the
application site. The application proposal is small for a modern DIY store. It would
be one of the applicant’s smallest operations within the country. Thus, the applicant
has already demonstrated a degree of flexibility in promoting a scheme that is both in
scale with the quantitative requirements identified within the catchment area and with
Blandford Forum’s role in the retail hierarchy. In addition, the scale is such that it is
more capable of being located within Blandford Forum town centre. However, key
requirements in a sequential test is the “class of goods approach” and whether the
range of goods proposed by the application proposal is capable of being sold within
the town. In assessing this, it is necessary to take account of the range of goods to
be sold. Many of the goods sold in DIY stores are bulky or are bought in bulk.
Further it is common to buy a number of different goods on a single trip. This means
both that significant sized units are likely to be necessary and also convenient car
parking is necessary. In this situation, there is limited scope for flexibility greater than
that already shown. Therefore, the minimum site area is likely to be .5 hectares. Of
the six sites within Blandford which were assessed by the applicants, it is
questionable whether they would be suitable for the development proposed. In
sequential terms, they would be preferable to the application site. Thus, the planning
application would be deemed to fail the sequential approach. However, the need
requirement in the earlier section has demonstrated that there is a requirement for
such a facility in the town, the sites are not all suitable for retail development, or
available.

Retail Impact Although Blandford is a relatively small centre and with a vacancy rate
which suggests the centre may not be thriving, it is considered the proposal would be
unlikely to result in material harm to the vitality and viability of the town centre,
provided it is conditioned appropriately to ensure it trades as a DIY store. This is
because the majority of trade is likely to be drawn from large stores and surrounding
towns, the limited number of retailers in Blandford town centre that would compete
with it, the fact that for a number of those retailers competition would be experienced
only in part of their business, and the fact that there is forecast to be an ongoing
growth in comparison spending. The fact that the store will claw back expenditure to
the town from others may also mean there is some opportunity for other traders to
benefit. However, this would be increased if a site in or on the edge of the centre
were available.


                                                                                           9
Conclusions The application has passed the three major retail tests: retail need,
sequential assessment and retail impact. If permission were granted, conditions
restricting the range of goods sold and the maximum floor space would be
appropriate.

Council’s report on the Old School The report was commissioned by the Council to
appraise a condition survey report provided by the applicant. It is confined to the
original building and not the modern extensions. In conclusion, whilst the applicants
state that in their view the school building has been very poorly maintained and
vandalised, they consider that as a result the condition of the structure, fabric and
services is in severe disrepair. It is the Council’s consultants’ view that the building is
not so severely in disrepair that it is no longer worthy of retention and is not beyond
economic repair. The applicant’s indicate that in their view a sum of £192,000 should
be allowed to repair it. The Council’s consultant considered that a more realistic
budget figure for carrying out repairs and upgrading of the original school building
would be between £55-65,000. This would exclude any demolition works on the
modern extensions and any external works. Although repairs are necessary it is
considered that the building is suitable for conversion to an alternative use and such
works could be carried out in a manner that retains its character.

Summary/Conclusion: There are four main issues: traffic, retail impact and loss of
the building and effect of the new building on the Conservation Area. All of these
issues have been explained above. Clearly there is little evidence to suggest that the
additional traffic generated is unacceptable and no objection was received from the
County Highway Officer. Similarly, there is little evidence to suggest that the impact
on the town centre would be unfavourable. The issues regarding the loss of the old
school and the impact of the new building on the Conservation Area remain. The
report prepared for the Council suggests that the building is capable of retention and
re-use and that its prominence in the Conservation Area should be safeguarded. The
Conservation Officer has expressed concern about the design and bulk of the
proposed store as well as the use of the materials within the context of its
surroundings in the Conservation Area, and considers the Old School House
positively contributes towards the character and appearance of the Conservation
Area. Therefore, on these two grounds the officers consider the proposals would be
contrary to the policies in the Local Plan and Structure Plan.

Recommendation: Refuse permission. Reasons for refusal:

1. The proposal, by reason of its excessive size, bulky form, close proximity to the
public highway, inappropriate use of materials of construction and relationship with
adjoining development would be harmful to the character and appearance of the
Conservation Area and therefore contrary to Policies 1.8, 1.24 and EN.Q.

2. The application is considered to be premature in the absence of a satisfactory
scheme for the retention or replacement of the existing building and is contrary to
Policies 1.8, 1.24, 1.25 and EN.Q.




                                                                                        10
BLANDFORD ST MARY (04)

Location: The Old School House,                              Ref No: 2/2002/9023
Bournemouth Road, BLANDFORD ST                               Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers
MARY

Applicant: Quadrant Estates

Application Type: Conservation Area Consent

Proposal: Demolish old school house

Conservation Area: Blandford Forum, Blandford St Mary & Bryanston

Deferred from: 8 April 2003.

Reason for deferral: For negotiations on design (02/0211) and consideration of
conditions.

Update: Members indicated that permission would be granted for the DIY store and
that the building would therefore be demolished.

Recommendation: Grant Conservation Area Consent.

1.      Timing of demolition works

     -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


APPENDIX FROM MEETING 8 APRIL 2003

BLANDFORD ST MARY (04)

Location: The Old School House,                              Ref No: 2/2002/9023
Bournemouth Road, BLANDFORD ST                               Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers
MARY

Applicant: Quadrant Estates

Application Type: Conservation Area Consent

Proposal: Demolish old school house

Conservation Area: Blandford Forum, Blandford St Mary & Bryanston

Description of Site: The site is approximately .63 hectares situated adjacent to the
Stour Park development at Blandford St Mary. The land is roughly square with
frontages to the service road to Stour Park and Bournemouth Road. The land is
currently vacant. The land slopes gently from north to south and is lower than the two


                                                                                                               11
roads next to it. The former school building is situated in the west corner of the site.
It consists of a traditional mid-19th Century building with modern flat roof extensions.
It is unoccupied. The site is also bounded by School Lane and residential properties
to the west and the brewery premises to the north. Access utilises an unfinished exit
from the roundabout to the east of the site.

Planning Policy: Local Plan Policy E/2/4 Employment Site, BL2, 1.8, 1.24, 1.25,
3.2, 3.3, 3.4, 3.19. Structure Plan Policies S.C, S.H, E.A, E.B, TR.B, EN.H, EN.Q,
I.A, I.B, I.D, and I.E.

Relevant Planning History: None

Consultations:

Wessex Water – informative to protect the integrity of systems.
County Archaeologist – condition requiring a programme of archaeological work prior
to groundworks.
Economic Development (Rural Economy) – Detailed comment including whether the
store would have an adverse affect on trade in the town centre and availability of
adequate employment land and commercial floor space.
Blandford St Mary Parish Council – Object. Garden centre needed. Over-
development. Materials inappropriate. Additional traffic. If above matters addressed
would have no objections. Also felt a substantial donation to the village hall should be
made. No objection to Council’s retail impact appraisal.
Environment Agency – No objection conditional – surface water drainage.
Dorset Cyclists Network – Detailed comments including recommendation for a green
transport plan for staff/customers to have safe, secure and convenient parking and a
contribution to enable a safe cycle link between Spetisbury and Blandford.
Civic Society – Would undoubtedly affect retail units in the town and the industrial
estates. Old school should be restored and incorporated into the scheme. Object to
demolition. Design out of keeping.
Technical Services – No objection conditional on levels and drainage.
Dorset Wildlife Trust – Presence of bats should be checked. May lead to loss of
foraging area. Recommends native planting around site.
Blandford Chamber of Trade & Commerce – Harm to vitality of town centre. Would
compete with at least 8 businesses in the town. Alternative sites available in the town
centre.
Blandford Town Council – No objection in principle to the proposal for a DIY store
although totally opposed to the design of the building. No objection to Council’s retail
impact appraisal.
Public transport coordinates - request provision of public transport vehicle for
minimum 3 years.
English Heritage – A case that can be determined by the Council. Therefore no
representations to be made.
Conservation Officer – Detailed comments. Does not agree with the conclusions of
the applicant’s report. Existing school building contributes in a positive way to the
character and appearance of the area. The proposed building would not be seen as
enhancing the Conservation Area or leaving it unharmed. The diminution in the
spatial characteristics of the locality would be compromised and the cumulative
impact of the repetitious nature, visual bulk and materials would appear visually


                                                                                      12
discordant. A small amount of landscaping would not reduce to any significant
degree this impact.

Representations: 19 objections. Over-development, threat to trade in town centre,
additional traffic, too near to housing and supermarket, loss of old school building,
new building would be harmful to character and appearance of area, activities and the
building would be noisy, alterations to sewerage system, a contribution should be
made to the town, there would be harm to protected species, the Council’s own
impact report does not include all the premises in the town that would be affected. 2
letters of support. Proposal is sustainable, would create employment and be
convenient.

Planning Appraisal: Description. The proposals are for demolition of the old school
building and erection of a retail unit with floor area of 1,950 square metres.

Historic Building Impact Assessment The purpose of the report is to provide
information about the origins of the old school building, its architectural and historic
interests and an assessment of the contribution it makes to the special character and
appearance of the Conservation Area. The report concludes that the potential
contribution has been severely compromised by its extensive alteration, its hidden
position and radical changes to its physical and visual context brought about by
recent development around it.

Condition Survey The building suffers from extensive defects allowing the building to
become dilapidated. The cost to bring the building back into a state of occupation
would need to be weighed against any intended uses in valued and furbished
property. The proposed cost is £192,000 to bring the building back into reuse.

Analysis of the Impact of the Redevelopment of the Old School House Site
It concludes that the balance of advantage lies in improving the application. The
development would bring forward sustainable benefits which would make a positive
contribution to both the character and appearance of the Conservation Area whilst at
the same time ensure that the undertaking of the area’s historic development is
preserved. The old school itself is no longer viable for re-use. The proposal would
bring local employment to the site. The building is documented and its retention is no
longer required. The school house does not make a positive contribution to the
character and preservation of the Conservation Area.

Council’s report on the Old School The report was commissioned by the Council to
appraise a condition survey report provided by the applicant. It is confined to the
original building and not the modern extensions. In conclusion, whilst the applicants
state that in their view the school building has been very poorly maintained and
vandalised, they consider that as a result the condition of the structure, fabric and
services is in severe disrepair. It is the Council’s consultants’ view that the building is
not so severely in disrepair that it is no longer worthy of retention and is not beyond
economic repair. The applicant’s indicate that in their view a sum of £192,000 should
be allowed to repair it. The Council’s consultant considered that a more realistic
budget figure for carrying out repairs and upgrading of the original school building
would be between £55-65,000. This would exclude any demolition works on the
modern extensions and any external works. Although repairs are necessary it is


                                                                                         13
considered that the building is suitable for conversion to an alternative use and such
works could be carried out in a manner that retains its character.

Summary/Conclusion: The issue regarding the loss of the old school. The report
prepared for the Council suggests that the building is capable of retention and re-use
and that its prominence in the Conservation Area should be safeguarded. Therefore,
on this ground the officers consider the proposals would be contrary to the policies in
the Local Plan and Structure Plan.

Recommendation: Refuse permission. Reasons for refusal:

1. The existing building is considered to make a positive contribution to both the
character and appearance of the Conservation Area and there is no justification for its
demolition and is contrary to Policies 1.25 and EN.Q.

           -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHARLTON MARSHALL (09)

Location: Plots 8 & 9 Red Barn Farm,                      Ref No: 2/2003/0228
Thornicombe, CHARLTON MARSHALL                            Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Dorset Country Homes

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect 2 No. dwellings (change of house type)

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: Land is in open countryside, next to the main road. Six of the
nine houses have been built.

Planning Policy: District Wide Local Plan Policies 1.6 and 1.8, Structure Plan
Policies I.D and EN.F

Relevant Planning History:
1995/0521 – Erect 9 houses – Granted
2002/0894 – Erect 2 dwellings – refused on grounds of overdevelopment, loss of
landscaped bund, noise nuisance to occupants owing to proximity to road.

Consultations:
Parish Council: Object – safety of access, inadequate access to sewerage plant
which is too near to houses, noise, effect on bank and bund, inadequate splays, does
not comply with PPG 3, no landscape details, overdevelopment, too near road and
embankment and at lower level.

Blandford St Mary Parish Council: No objection

Building Control: No objection for access to sewage plant and position of houses.


                                                                                                   14
Environmental Health: Noise investigation as previously agreed should be
incorporated into scheme.

Environment Agency: No objection conditional

Highway Authority: No objection

Representations: Ten objections – inadequate access to sewerage facility, 3
bedroom house out of keeping in size and style with 4 bedroom houses, stability of
ground next to road, overdevelopment, inadequate parking, noise from removal of
embankment.

Planning Appraisal: The principle of development for 2 plots has already been
agreed as planning permission was granted in 1995 for them. This application is
being made because it seeks to change the design and siting of the last two plots.
Permission was refused in 2002 for a similar application. This new application has
addressed the members objections. The fundamental differences are:

A reduction in the size of the houses, to provide three bedrooms instead of four;
Provision of an access path to the sewage plant;
Relocation of the houses further from the road and bund being some 9 metres from
the former. The bund would not be affected.

The officer considers that the objections have been adequately addressed. There is
no objection to the suitability of the sewage plant, its location or access to it. The
houses and gardens are further away from the road and therefore, with appropriate
further soundproofing (if it is necessary), would not be affected by noise to a
significant extent.

The size, design and location of the houses are not considered out of character
where there is a range of house types in Thornicombe and in the surrounding
countryside. The Highways Officers does not object on safety grounds. PPG 3 seeks
efficient use of Brownfield land, which this would be considered such, notwithstanding
there is planning permission on this land for two houses already.

Recommendation: That planning permission is GRANTED

1.   Materaisl (scheme approval)
2.   Tree protection (fencing)
3.   Tree protection (excavations)
4.   Landscape design proposals
5.   Foul & Surface water drainage
6.   No development approved by this permission shall be commenced until the
     applicant has undertaken an investigation to assess the impact of development of
     the site on the water environment, and a report has been submitted to and
     approved by the Local Planning Authority, in consultation with the Environment
     Agency.
      Reason: Previous land uses may well have caused contamination of the
     application site. The condition is required in order to ascertain the degree of


                                                                                     15
   contamination, and to avoid the possibility of contaminants being released into
   groundwater or surface waters as the site is developed.
7. Before development commences, details of soundproofing of the dwellings (as
   appropriate) shall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning
   Committee.
    Reason: To safeguard subsequent occupants from work.

8. INFORMATIVE NOTE: A consent to Discharge was issued by the Environment
   Agency (01258 483369) for the sewage treatment plant in November 1999. Any
   unaccounted for increase in volumes to the treatment works requires variation of
   a consent.




                                                                                     16
COMPTON ABBAS (12)

Location: Barns at Gourds Farm,                 Ref No: 2/2002/0689
COMPTON ABBAS                                   Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: Messrs J D & M J Parsons

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Conversion of barns to 2 No. dwellings

Conservation Area: Compton Abbas

Description of Site:

The site of .22ha (.54 acre) comprises two substantial early 19th C. (Grade 11 Listed)
stone barns, positioned either side of a central “courtyard”. Gourds Farm is located
centrally within the hamlet of East Compton, and is accessed from the A 350 road via
the (two) adjacent unclassified lanes. The site is surrounded by an informal scatter of
development, including agricultural buildings, the (remains of) the nearby St Mary’s
Church, and several dwellings. Some of these buildings are also Listed Buildings,
others are more recent utilitarian structures of little architectural merit.

Planning Policy:

Structure Plan: SI/HG/ENQ/ENF.

District Local Plan: 1.5/1.6/1.8/1.10/1.14/1.15/1.21/1.23/1.24/1.32.

Most relevant:

Policy 1.5 Development will only be permitted in a small village or hamlet if one of the
circumstances in Policy 1.6 apply.

Policy 1.6. In the countryside areas beyond the defined settlement boundaries, most
forms of residential and commercial development for general needs will not be
permitted. The following uses however, may be granted permission, subject to the
relevant policy and assessment criteria: ii) rural buildings: re-use and adaptation.

Policy 1.10. (second part) Permission for residential use will only be granted in the
following circumstances:

       i)     where re-development for business, storage, tourism, community or
              recreational use is not a practicable solution;
       ii)    the building(s) are not in an isolated position and are well related to the
              Public Highway network and to community facilities and services;
       iii)   the residential conversion is part of a scheme for business re-use;
       iv)    the building(s) should not be close to a working farm where smells and
              noise may be a problem affecting residential amenity;




                                                                                        17
       v)     where buildings are of traditional construction the residential activity
              associated with the conversion should not harm either the character of
              the building or the character of the locality.

Policy 1.21 Development proposals which involve the alteration or extension of a
listed building will only be permitted if the architectural and historic interest of the
building will be preserved and no original or historic features will be destroyed.

Relevant Planning History:

PA 2/2000/0668(12) Proposed residential conversion of (these) two barns.
Permission Refused 13/11/2000. Reason: conversion of the barns to two residential
units would be contrary to Structure Plan and Local Plan policy in that the site is
outside the settlement boundary of the village, and are not well located to the public
highway or to community facilities or services. The residential scheme is not part of a
scheme for business re-use
And the buildings are close to a working farm where smells and noise may be a
problem. The conversion would harm the character of the building and of the locality,
and the setting of the adjoining Listed Buildings.

LB 2/2002/9099(12) Refusal of Listed Building Consent as above.

PA 2/2001/0722(12) Farm track/access, remove part agricultural building and replace
on new site. Approved 30/01/2002

Consultations:

Parish Council.
i) Barns are in urgent need of repair, something must be done to secure their future
without harming the character of the area.
ii) If farming is to continue at Gourds Farm the proposed dev. is unacceptable on
amenity grounds because of the proximity of livestock buildings and silage heaps etc.
iii) If farming is to cease then barn A (only) is acceptable for residential conversion.
with a restriction on barn B to prevent use as a holiday let/s or a second dwelling.
This to preserve the space between the barns, which is the site of an ancient
settlement.
iv) a (Committee) site visit should be held prior to determination.

Wessex Water.
No objection in principle.
The site is not within a WW sewered area, therefore a private foul water system is
required.
Mains water supply is available.

Environment Agency.
No objection in principle.

Highway Authority.
No objection in principle subject to conditions as recommended.




                                                                                           18
English Nature.
Protected species such as bats, badgers or barn owls may be using the site and
mitigation measures may have to be considered if this is the case. The applicant
should submit an ecological survey to establish this.

Dorset Wildlife Trust.
Bats may be present. As all species are protected, the barns should be inspected by
a licensed bat worker, before any (favourable) decision is taken.

County Archaeological Officer.
There is no particular reason for archaeological concern.

English Heritage.
“This is a case that can be determined by your Council in accordance with
Government guidance, development plan policies, and with the benefit of
conservation advice available locally. We do not therefore wish to make any
observations at this stage”

SPAB (The Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings).
Objections. These proposals offer some very minor improvements over the previous
scheme. The residential use of barns is generally not supported. However, if a
favourable decision is contemplated, then Barn A is more suitable for conversion than
barn B. Alternative i.e. non-residential use/s should be found for Barn B. Both barns,
although in need of some repair, appear to be in a reasonably sound structural state.
Conversion of both barns would seriously compromise the historic interest and
character of the site because it would require or result in the physical division of the
courtyard.

Conservation Officer.
It is unfortunate that the accompanying information / justification is rather limited
(more was submitted with the previous application). However, if we are satisfied that
sufficient information has been provided about the costings, and in response to policy
1.11, then the proposed works are generally acceptable (subject to appropriate
conditions). It is necessary to ensure that the new glazed openings are well designed
– no double glazing in the smaller windows, and that as much of the original fabric as
possible is retained unharmed.

Economic Development Officer.
These are attractive buildings which are in need of considerable repair to make them
habitable in any form. Although some form of low key commercial use might be
acceptable, it is most unlikely, even taking into account the availability of grant aid,
that this would be economically viable in terms of the investment required to refurbish
the buildings. The only other possible consideration would be a mixed use
development using one building for residential use and the other for a commercial use
generating very little traffic. Although, again, the commercial viability of this is still
questionable.

Representations:

Three letters against.


                                                                                       19
Main points:
i)    Livestock buildings/yards within 400 metres.
ii)   No change in planning policy or government advice since the previous refusal
      of p.p. and no material change in the proposal itself.
iii)  Any increase in traffic would be undesirable.
iv)   Loss of character if buildings converted and site sub-divided.
v)    Barn B is particularly unsuitable for residential conversion.

Three letters of support.

Main points.
i)    There is no realistic / viable alternative use.
ii)   Very quiet locality – residential use welcomed – new village housing is badly
      needed.
iii)  Scheme would enhance the appearance of these dilapidated barns and
      preserve their structure.

Planning Appraisal:

1. This application presents two primary issues.
   Firstly, the residential conversion of two substantial redundant agricultural barns in
   the countryside, which is generally contrary to policy.
   Secondly, the need (and the statutory obligation upon the Authority), to work to
   secure the long term future of important Listed Buildings, by finding an acceptable
   viable alternative use/s for them.

2. A proposal such as this, which would result in the residential conversion of, and
   permanent separation of property from, the agricultural holding, does not
   constitute agricultural diversification. Policy 1.10 (b. iii) and PPG7 place a firm
   emphasis upon the re-use of buildings for business purposes. They state that
   residential use can be acceptable, but usually only as the subordinate part of a
   scheme for business re-use. However, PPG7 also acknowledges that new
   housing will continue to be required in rural areas, and that many villages can
   accept modest development without damage to the character of the countryside.

3. PPG15 is directly relevant to this proposal. It states that, generally, the best way of
   securing the upkeep of historic buildings (and areas) is to keep them in active use.
   The preferred use is of course that for which the building was originally designed,
   but for the great majority, this must mean economically viable uses if they are to
   survive, and new, and even continuing uses, will often necessitate some degree of
   adaptation.

4. The Local Plan states that:
        i)“Conversion to residential use must be carefully considered in view of the
   overall strategy of sustainable development and the protection of the countryside.
   To allow widespread conversion, particularly in isolated areas, will undermine this
   strategy by encouraging additional journeys by car, and by adversely affecting the
   character of the countryside.”



                                                                                       20
  ii) “The age and quality of the buildings and the reasons behind the need to convert
  to a new use are important considerations.”

5. Officers conclude that the relatively isolated location of the site, in the quiet
   unspoilt rural hamlet of East Compton, makes it unsuitable for most, if not all,
   commercial / business activities. Such development would have the potential to
   detract from the amenity and character of the area. It would also have the
   potential to generate more activity and attract more traffic than residential or
   agricultural uses. Commercial / business use alone, would not produce the income
   necessary to finance the (costly) repair and upkeep of these important historic
   buildings. Therefore, in principle, commercial use on any significant scale, would
   be inappropriate in these particular circumstances, and, in principle, some
   credibility is due to the case for residential use.

6. There is no objection to the scheme on architectural grounds, it is considered to
   be generally well-conceived, and sympathetic, although Barn A - the one nearest
   to the road - lends itself more readily to residential conversion than Barn B. Both
   barns are equally important historically.

7. Although it is not proposed to sub-divide the open courtyard, there is nonetheless
   concern that “competition” for use of this space as a domestic area would almost
   inevitably could cause this to happen at some future date, thus compromising the
   historic function and appearance of the internal courtyard. Therefore, the opinion
   expressed by the parish council and by SPAB, that any favourable decision should
   relate only to barn A, and that barn B, should be retained in common ownership as
   an ancillary domestic building, has much to commend it. Keeping barn B as an
   ancillary element to the residential use of barn A would be beneficial in that it
   would not rule out the possibility of some limited business / commercial use
   thereof, most probably by the occupants of barn A. Alternatively, it is possible that
   part of barn B, i.e. the main “hall” area could be utilised as ancillary residential
   accommodation (as a large “family” room or studio, perhaps accessed from barn A
   via a glazed link alongside the west wall of the courtyard).

8. Also, conversion of the barns into two dwellings rather than one, would be likely to
   generate twice the level of traffic and general activity, and therefore have twice the
   potential to compromise the quiet ambience and rural character of the locality.
   References to the amenity implications of approving a residential use close to
   farm buildings are somewhat out of date, as planning permission has previously
   been granted for the removal and relocation of the adjacent livestock yard/
   building elsewhere within the Gourds Farm holding.

Summary:

In conclusion Officers consider that there is a legitimate argument in this particular
case in favour of residential conversion (under policy 1.10) of one of the barns (barn
A), and that the plans put forward, in this respect, are appropriate and acceptable.
However, conversion of both barns to two separate units of accommodation would
constitute more development than is strictly necessary to secure the future of the
Listed Buildings, and have serious implications for the historic integrity of the site, and
cause harm the amenity and rural character of the area. Permission for conversion to


                                                                                        21
two dwellings would therefore be contrary to Policy 1.10, in particular, para. B. iii). It
could also be widely interpreted as setting an unfortunate precedent. Thus planning
permission should be refused for the application as submitted, for the reason/s set out
below.

Recommendation: Refuse planning permission.

Reasons.

       1. The proposed development, by reason of the creation of two independent
          dwelling houses on a site located beyond the established settlement
          boundary of Compton Abbas village, would constitute to an undesirable
          intensification of residential development in the countryside which would
          cause unacceptable harm to the quiet unspoilt rural character and amenity
          thereof. Such an intensive form of development is not considered essential
          to secure the long term future of these (Listed) buildings. In these respects
          the proposal is contrary to Structure Plan and District Local Plan policy, and
          to PPG7 and PPG15 advice. Policies SI, 1.7, and 1.10 (in particular) refer.

       2. The proposed development, by reason of the conversion of both of these
           Grade II Listed (agricultural) Buildings into separate dwelling houses, could
           seriously compromise the historic interest and architectural integrity of the
           site, in particular of the open courtyard onto which the buildings face, and
           thus the relationship of the buildings to each other. In these respects the
           proposal is contrary to Structure Plan and District Local Plan policy, and to
           PPG15 advice. Policies ENQ, 1.21, and 1.23 (in particular) refer.

 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPTON ABBAS (12)

Location: Barns at Gourds Farm,                             Ref No: 2/2002/9101
COMPTON ABBAS                                               Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: Messrs J D & M J Parsons

Application Type: Listed building consent

Proposal: Conversion of barns to 2 No. dwellings

Conservation Area: Compton Abbas

Description of Site:
The site of .22ha (.54 acre) comprises two substantial early 19 th C. (Grade 11 Listed)
stone barns, positioned either side of a central “courtyard”. Gourds Farm is located
centrally within the hamlet of East Compton, and is accessed from the A 350 road via
the (two) adjacent unclassified lanes. The site is surrounded by an informal scatter of
development, including agricultural buildings, the (remains of) the nearby St Mary’s
Church, and several dwellings. Some of these buildings are also Listed Buildings,
others are more recent utilitarian structures of little architectural merit.


                                                                                                             22
Planning Policy:

Structure Plan: SI and ENQ.

District Local Plan: 1.21, 1.23, 1.24 and 1.32.

Most relevant:

Policy 1.21 Development proposals which involve the alteration or extension of a
listed building will only be permitted if the architectural and historic interest of the
building will be preserved and no original or historic features will be destroyed.

Relevant Planning History:

PA 2/2000/0668(12) Proposed residential conversion of (these) two barns.
Permission Refused 13/11/2000. Reason: conversion of the barns to two residential
units would be contrary to Structure Plan and Local Plan policy in that the site is
outside the settlement boundary of the village, and are not well located to the public
highway or to community facilities or services. The residential scheme is not part of a
scheme for business re-use
And the buildings are close to a working farm where smells and noise may be a
problem. The conversion would harm the character of the building and of the locality,
and the setting of the adjoining Listed Buildings.

LB 2/2002/9099(12) Refusal of Listed Building Consent as above.

PA 2/2001/0722(12) Farm track/access, remove part agricultural building and replace
on new site. Approved 30/01/2002

Consultations:

Parish Council.
i) Barns are in urgent need of repair, something must be done to secure their future
without harming the character of the area.
ii) If farming is to continue at Gourds Farm the proposed development is
unacceptable on amenity grounds because of the proximity of livestock buildings and
silage heaps etc.
iii) If farming is to cease then barn A (only) is acceptable for residential conversion.
with a restriction on barn B to prevent use as a holiday let/s or a second dwelling.
This to preserve the space between the barns, which is the site of an ancient
settlement.
iv) a (Committee) site visit should be held prior to determination.
County Archaeological Officer.
There is no particular reason for archaeological concern.

English Heritage.
“This is a case that can be determined by your Council in accordance with
Government guidance, development plan policies, and with the benefit of



                                                                                           23
conservation advice available locally. We do not therefore wish to make any
observations at this stage”

SPAB (The Society for the Preservation of Ancient Buildings).
Objections. These proposals offer some very minor improvements over the previous
scheme. The residential use of barns is generally not supported. However, if a
favourable decision is contemplated, then Barn A is more suitable for conversion than
barn B. Alternative i.e. non-residential use/s should be found for Barn B. Both barns,
although in need of some repair, appear to be in a reasonably sound structural state.
Conversion of both barns would seriously compromise the historic interest and
character of the site because it would require or result in the physical division of the
courtyard.

Conservation Officer.
It is unfortunate that the accompanying information / justification is rather limited
(more was submitted with the previous application). However, if we are satisfied that
sufficient information has been provided about the costings, and in response to policy
1.11, then the proposed works are generally acceptable (subject to appropriate
conditions). It is necessary to ensure that the new glazed openings are well designed
– no double glazing in the smaller windows, and that as much of the original fabric as
possible is retained unharmed.

Representations:

Three letters against.
Main points:
vi)   Loss of character if buildings converted and site sub-divided.
vii)  Barn B is particularly unsuitable for residential conversion.

Three letters of support.
Main points.
iv)   Scheme would enhance the appearance of these dilapidated barns and
      preserve their structure.

Planning Appraisal:

1.          This application presents two primary issues. Firstly, the residential
conversion of two substantial redundant agricultural barns in the countryside, (as
opposed to in a settlement), which is generally contrary to policy. Secondly, the need
(and the statutory obligation upon the Authority), to work to secure the long-term
future of important Listed Buildings, by finding an acceptable viable alternative use/s
for them.


2.         PPG15 is directly relevant to this proposal. It states that, generally the best
way of securing the upkeep of historic buildings (and areas) is to keep them in active
use. The preferred use is of course that for which the building was originally
designed, but for the great majority, this must mean economically viable uses if they
are to survive, and new, and even continuing uses, will often necessitate some
degree of adaptation.


                                                                                       24
3.    There is no objection to the scheme on architectural grounds, it is considered to
be generally well-conceived, and sympathetic, although Barn A - the one nearest to
the road - lends itself more readily to residential conversion than Barn B. Both barns
are equally important historically.

4.    Although it is not proposed to sub-divide the open courtyard, there is
nonetheless concern that “competition” for use of this space as a domestic area could
cause this to happen at some future date, thus compromising the historic function and
appearance of the internal courtyard. Therefore the opinion expressed by the parish
council and by SPAB, that any favourable decision should relate only to barn A, and
that barn B, should be retained in common ownership as an ancillary domestic
building, has much to commend it. Keeping barn B as an ancillary element to the
residential use of barn A would be beneficial in that it would not rule out the possibility
of some limited business / commercial use thereof in the future, possibly by the
occupants of barn A. Alternatively, it is possible that part of barn B, i.e. the main “hall”
area could be used as residential accommodation as a large family or sitting room,
perhaps accessed from barn A via a glazed link alongside the west wall of the
courtyard.

5.    Also, conversion of the barns into two dwellings rather than one, would be likely
to generate twice the level of traffic and general activity, and therefore have twice the
potential for loss of amenity and rural character. References to the amenity
implications of approving a residential use close to farm buildings are somewhat out
of date, as planning permission has previously been granted for the removal and
relocation of the adjacent livestock yard / building.

Summary:

In conclusion Officers consider that there is a legitimate argument in this particular
case in favour of residential conversion (under policy 1.10) of one of the barns (barn
A), and that the plans put forward, in this respect, are appropriate and acceptable.
However, conversion of both barns to two separate units of accommodation would
constitute more development than is strictly necessary to secure the future of the
Listed Buildings, and have serious implications for the historic integrity of the site, and
cause harm the amenity and rural character of the area. Permission for conversion to
two dwellings would therefore be contrary to Policy 1.10, in particular, para. viii), and
would also be interpreted as setting an unfortunate precedent. Thus planning
permission should be refused for the application as submitted, for the reason/s set out
below.

Recommendation:

Refuse Listed Building Consent.
Reason:

1) The proposed development, by reason of the conversion of both of these Grade II
   Listed (agricultural) Buildings into separate dwelling houses, could seriously
   compromise the historic interest and architectural integrity of the site, in particular
   of the open courtyard onto which the buildings face, and thus the relationship of


                                                                                         25
   the buildings to each other. In these respects the proposal is contrary to Structure
   Plan and District Local Plan policy, and to PPG15 advice. Policies ENQ, 1.21, and
   1.23 (in particular) refer.
   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

COMPTON ABBAS (12)

Location: Fanners Orchard, COMPTON                                      Ref No: 2/2003/0128
ABBAS                                                                   Case Officer: Mr A Williams

Applicant: Fox Homes

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect 2 no. dwellings with double garages, create vehicular and
pedestrian access

Conservation Area: Compton Abbas

Deferred from: 8 April 2003

Reason for deferral: The Committee wished to see a schematic view of the
proposed development from Fontmell Down to the east, and the formal views of the
Tree Officer in respect of trees shown to be felled on the application drawings.

Update: The Tree Officer’s views and additional information from the applicant as
requested by Committee are awaited. It is anticipated they will be available for the
meeting. If they are not, the application will be deferred to a subsequent meeting.

Recommendation: APPROVE as recommendation in attached appendix.




                                                                                                                                     26
APPENDIX DEFERRED FROM 8 APRIL 2003

COMPTON ABBAS (12)

Location: Fanners Orchard, COMPTON           Ref No: 2/2003/0128
ABBAS                                        Case Officer: Mr A Williams

Applicant: Fox Homes

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect 2 no. dwellings with double garages, create vehicular and
pedestrian access

Conservation Area: Compton Abbas

Description of Site:

Planning Policy: Local Plan Policies 1.8 Standard Assessment Criteria, 1.9
Important Open/Wooded Areas, 1.24 Character of Conservation Areas, 1.32 Areas of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, 2.2 Making best use of housing land within settlements,
2.6 infill developments within settlements, 2.10 maximum density encouraged within
settlements.

Relevant Planning History: The Committee may recall visiting this site during 2002
after it was resolved to refuse permission for three dwellings. An appeal was
subsequently dismissed in April 2002. However, the Planning Inspector did not rule
out the possibility of appropriate development on this site. A scheme submitted in
November 2002 was subsequently withdrawn and replaced with the current scheme
following discussions with Officers.

Consultations:

Compton Abbas Parish Council: No objections but unfortunate that many of the large
and inappropriate windows of the “barn” type house would be visible from distant
views, pleased that the IOWA is now preserved, principle of provision of “affordable
housing” is being flouted in that these houses are not affordable to local people.
These plans do not address problems with access to the site and drainage, there
should be a requirement that no building takes place any further east of the garage
for the “barn” house.
County Highway Officer: No objections subject to appropriate access and visibility
shown on submitted drawings.
Conservation Officer: His comments are embodied in the main body of the Appraisal.

Representations:
CPRE: Have some detailed comments to make and wonder why the orchard cannot
become part of the land attached to the two dwellings. Reservations about the house
masquerading as a converted barn, which appears fraudulent and ask whether this
second house could be much like the other; the proposed fenestration is wrong. A
different approach would also have the advantage of lowering the height of the whole


                                                                                  27
building and would make it more in keeping with most of the houses in Compton
Abbas.
Three letters of objection: The buildings are too large on an elevated site and would
dominate the landscape. Access arrangements and removal of frontage hedge will
destroy character of lane. Access will be dangerous, particularly opposite children’s
playground, unacceptable noise.

Planning Appraisal: The main issue is:
 Will the proposed development appropriately conserve or enhance the character
   of the Conservation Area and meet the other requirements of policies relating to
   development within settlements and Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty?

Conservation Officer: This application follows a previous proposal for three dwellings
which was refused by this Council and subsequently dismissed on appeal. Following
dismissal, negotiations have taken place to seek a form of development which does
not conflict with the aims of safeguarding the Important Open Wooded Area, Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty, Conservation Area and village character in general.

It is considered that the site can accommodate some development without harm
being caused to interests of acknowledged importance (see above paragraph). At the
appeal I took the view that a single dwelling on the site may be appropriate (the
Parish took the view that two dwellings could be accommodated). Since then,
discussions have taken place with both the applicant and architect to seek an
acceptable solution. The result is the provision of two dwellings on the site in two
very different forms. This approach echoes more closely existing patterns of
development within the village – with evident primacy of the main dwelling and
subservient character of service or ancillary buildings. Thus the suggestion in this
instance of the thatched cottage and ancillary building reinforces this pattern although
to describe the second structure as a barn, is not entirely appropriate in my view as
the building is clearly domestic with references to agrarian vernacular.

Both buildings have been orientated to reduce their visual base when viewed from the
lane or adjacent play area. This reduction is also assisted by the use of hips at each
„lane end‟ of the buildings.

Whilst some of the open space will be used to provide two dwellings, access and
garaging, the modulation and scale of the proposed buildings should result in
sufficient space being reclaimed about the buildings to safeguard the spatial
characteristics of the locality and views to and from the Area of Outstanding Natural
Beauty.

The designs of the buildings are considered acceptable, reflecting forms elsewhere in
the village, and subject to the imposition of conditions to secure a development of
high quality no objections are raised.

Summary/Conclusion: The proposed residential units are considered to be of
appropriate form, scale, materials, character and bulk. Added provision for visibility to
meet highway requirements can be made whilst retaining and conserving most of the
frontage hedgerow. The details are considered to be acceptable in terms of their
impact on the character of the Conservation Area and wider setting of the village


                                                                                      28
within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. Drainage matters can be dealt with by
technical means to the planning conditions.

Recommendation: Subject to a legal obligation requiring contribution towards
community infrastructure and any payments of the Council’s legal costs that:
Planning Permission is granted subject to appropriate conditions relating to materials,
levels, landscaping, drainage and highway conditions, and removal of all Permitted
Development rights.

      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THIS ITEM IS REPORTED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF THE
CHAIRMAN


GILLINGHAM (20)

Location: Ham Farm, GILLINGHAM                             Ref No: 2/2002/0763
                                                           Case Officer: Nick Fagan

Applicant: Mr & Mrs Overton

Application Type: Outline planning permission

Proposal: Develop land by the erection of replacement agricultural buildings and
farmhouse, create vehicular access

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: An open site, which lies to the north of Cole Street Lane and to
the west of Shaftesbury Road (opposite Park Farm), approximately 240-300 metres
from each highway respectively.

The proposal is to erect replacement buildings, which are currently on the existing
Ham Farm site, where planning permission has recently been granted for residential
(292 dwellings) and a primary school.

The proposal is for sites for farm buildings and for a new farmhouse (agricultural
worker’s dwelling).

Planning Policy: Local Plan Policies 1.6 – Development (Protection) of the
Countryside; 1.8 Standard Assessment Criteria (including consideration of character
and amenities, design and external appearance of buildings, views of the
countryside); 2.16 Agricultural Dwellings will only be permitted in the Countryside
where: It is essential for the proper functioning of the holding for a fulltime worker to
be resident, holding to be established for at least 3 years and is viable, need cannot
be met by other housing available locally, size of dwelling is appropriate, to
agricultural holding, amenities of surrounding area can be safeguarded, visual
intrusion is minimised, occupancy limited to agricultural workers and dependants.


                                                                                                          29
If evidence is inconclusive for a dwelling, permission for temporary accommodation
may be granted for a limited period in the first instance.
PPG 7: The Countryside.

Relevant Planning History: The existing farm dwelling and farmstead (buildings) lie
on the site of the recently approved scheme for 292 dwellings and primary school at
Ham further to the north of the application site, on land which will incorporate
approximately 1/3 of the size of the original holding. Despite suggestions to the
contrary by the applicants, this land has now been sold to Wimpeys and that
development has commenced.


Consultations:
Gillingham Town Council – a object to the application on the following grounds –
outside settlement boundary, new access would create extra traffic on an already
inadequate and busy road, the site is in open countryside, the applicant has made
himself homeless and was now trying to build a replacement dwelling.

County Highway Officer –no objections to (revised) vehicular access onto Cole Street
Lane, subject to provision of visibility splays, and closure of existing accesses onto
holding from public highways.

The Council’s agricultural adviser has concluded, inter alia, that “the remaining block
of land does not meet the financial test, nor could it be treated as a full-time farm
without relying on renting extra land away from the holding”.
(See detailed planning appraisal below).

Representations:
 C.P.R.E. – Object – long approach road from Cole Street Lane presents an
  intrusion into the open countryside and will require the loss of hedgerow. The new
  access and inherent traffic will present a loss of amenity to residents of Cole
  Street Lane. Farmers may chose to destroy the viability of their holdings by
  selling off chunks of land and unnecessary associated buildings, but this is not an
  argument for breaching the development boundaries with an incursion into the
  increasingly threatened countryside.
  The case for agricultural need is not convincingly made.
 Representations from all of the local residents in Cole Street Lane, objecting to the
  proposed development on the following grounds:
  The Lane is already substandard, is not suitable for any increase in traffic,
  Adverse environmental impact – detrimental to visual appearance and landscape
  character, loss of ancient hedgerows (for visibility requirements), loss of habitat for
  wild animals,
  The small beef operation proposed to be carried out will not be viable,
  The applicants are not currently involved in farming, and were never the farmers
  of the original holding, which has been held in abeyance for several years.
  There is alternative accommodation available (one of the objectors states that her
  farmhouse is potentially available),
  Inaccurate plans do not show Meadow Brook Farm, which is the property most
  affected by these proposals.



                                                                                      30
Planning Appraisal: This is a proposal to erect replacement agricultural buildings
and farmhouse. The site of the existing agricultural buildings and farmhouse is
required for the new residential and school development. The applicants are
effectively setting up a new business, on a smaller amount of land, to rear beef cattle
from a pedigree suckler herd.

The central planning issue is whether the proposal for a new farmhouse meets the policy
tests in PPG7, Annexe I and the District Wide Local Plan.

It is necessary to briefly explain the history of this farmholding. In February around 26
acres of Ham Farm was sold for residential development, including the original
farmhouse and farm buildings. The reduced holding amounts to 80 acres. Ham
Farm was run as a dairy farm by John Overton until his retirement in 1988, when Neil
and Vanessa Overton (the applicants) commenced a new enterprise managing 80-90
suckler cows in partnership with Mrs Overton senior. The Senior Overtons remained
living in the farmhouse while the applicants lived elsewhere in Gillingham. In 1996
the northern 26 acres were rezoned for residential/school development in the draft
Local Plan. In May 2000, due to the anticipated sale of this land, the majority of stock
and suckler cow quota were sold and the business effectively ceased.

The applicants propose to re-establish a pedigree suckler cow herd totalling around
70 cows. It is proposed that Mrs Overton would take on the key role – there is a
labour requirement for one full time worker. The agricultural advisor states:

“In order to obtain the suckler cow premium, the stocking rate is limited to a maximum
of 1.8 livestock units/ha. On this basis, the proposed enterprise would require over
28.3 ha. (70 acres) of additional land. Ham Farm without the extra land would only be
able to support around 55 sucklers and their calves to one year old”.

To assess whether a new farmhouse is justified on the reduced size holding it is
necessary to satisfactorily address all the tests in PPG7 Annexe I, and this has been
comprehensively done by our agricultural consultant as follows:

Paragraph 5(a): “There is clearly established existing functional need”:
There is no existing need since the business has not been re-established. Since the
management of a suckler herd is not as intensive as some other livestock enterprises,
such as a dairy herd, the farm buildings could be located a few hundred metres away
from the new farm buildings (for instance in one of the new houses soon to be built).

Paragraph 5(b): “The need relates to a full-time worker, or one who is primarily
employed in agriculture, and does not relate to a part-time requirement”:
Although the enterprise proposed would meet the required number of standard man-
hours to justify one full-time worker, it relies heavily on renting additional land. If the
SMDs are calculated only using the number of suckler cows that could be kept at
Ham Farm, with no additional land (at a stocking rate of 1.8 livestock units/ha.), then
this would be treated as a part-time holding, and there would, therefore, be no
justification for a new dwelling.




                                                                                         31
Paragraph 5(c): “The unit and the agricultural activity concerned have been
established for at least 3 years, have been profitable for at least one of them,
are currently financially sound, and have a clear prospect of remaining so”:
This is clearly not the case. If the proposed enterprise is to be considered, it would
be necessary to include in the financial test the cost of renting extra land. A profit
similar to a stockman’s wage is unlikely to be achieved and the holding does not pass
the financial test.

Paragraph 5(d): “The functional need could not be fulfilled by another dwelling
on the unit or any other existing accommodation in the area which is suitable
and available for occupation by the workers concerned”:
Although those undertaking such an enterprise would not normally be expected to
purchase a property like Cole Street Farm with its holiday cottages (on the market for
£750,000), the applicants or their wider family have realised a substantial capital sum
well in excess of this from the sale of the development land and have themselves
removed the existing farmhouse.
Cole Street Farm would be well suited as the new farmhouse, since its holiday lets
would allow some diversification and there would be no need for new buildings in the
proposed elevated position above Cole Street Lane.

In summary the proposal fails to satisfy these tests in PPG 7 for the following
reasons:

1. The proposal fails to meet the financial test. The farm needs to increase in size if
   it is to justify the stock numbers proposed and thus a full-time worker. The
   business cannot rely on renting such a high proportion of extra land – it is
   unsustainable.
2. The original farmhouse, or another dwelling, could serve as an ideal dwelling to
   house a key-worker.
3. There is accommodation on the market which could be considered suitable and
   would allow the new farm buildings to be developed in a location that would have
   less impact on the surrounding area.

Accordingly, the proposal fails to satisfy Policies 1.6, 1.8 and 2.16 in the District Plan
and PPG7, Annexe I and should therefore be refused.

Recommendation: REFUSE PERMISSION for the following reasons:
1. The Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there is any overriding essential
agricultural need for a new farmhouse to meet the legitimate needs of the new
holding the proposal is therefore contrary to Structure Plan Policy S.I, District Wide
Local Plan (First Revision) 1.6 and 2.16, and PPG 7 Annexe I.

2. The proposed location of the new farmhouse and farm buildings would be unduly
prominent in the landscape to the south of Gillingham, contrary to Structure Plan
Policy S.I and District Wide Local Plan (First Revision) 1.8.

      ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




                                                                                                            32
THIS ITEM IS REPORTED TO COMMITTEE AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCILLOR
KAY


MARGARET MARSH (36)

Location: Land adjacent Higher Farm,            Ref No: 2/2002/0600
MARGARET MARSH                                  Case Officer: Nick Fagan

Applicant: Messrs AC & NR Roberts & Son

Application Type: Outline planning permission

Proposal: Develop land by erection of an agricultural worker's dwelling, create
vehicular and pedestrian access

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: The development site lies some 100 metres to the west of the
existing farm buildings and farmhouse, at the southern end of this 160 acre dairy farm
holding. Approximately 250 metres further to the west, in the hamlet of Margaret
Marsh, lies the bungalow which has recently housed the dairyman.

Planning Policy: Structure Plan Policy S.I. District Wide Local Plan Policies 1.6, 1.8
and 2.16, PPG 7, Annexe I.

Relevant Planning History:

2001/0102 – Previous application for the same development but slightly nearer to the
existing farmhouse, REFUSED 15 April 2002 by Committee for the following reasons:
1. There is an agreed labour requirement at Higher Farm for two key workers and
     there are two conveniently situated existing dwellings sufficient to accommodate
     such workers and their immediate dependants. Thus, having regard to all
     material considerations, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there is
     any overriding essential agricultural need for a further separate dwellinghouse to
     meet the legitimate needs of the holding. The proposal is therefore clearly
     contrary to Structure Plan and (draft) District Local Plan Policy (Policies 1.7, 1.31
     and 2.13 in particular refer), and to Central Government Advice prescribed in
     Planning Policy Guidance Note 7.
2. The increased use of the existing access and/or use of the proposed access onto
     the public highway, would by virtue of the limited visibility from and of vehicles
     using the access, be likely to prejudice the free flow of traffic and conditions of
     general safety along this section of the D31301.

The Woolaway bungalow was GRANTED outline permission on 24 January 1964
(O/A 508641) and full permission on 8 May 1964 (M508961). The applicant was Mr A
C Roberts, the current applicant. The agents state in their submission letter that „Mr
Alan Roberts‟ father had that bungalow built for an agricultural worker and lived in the
bungalow from 1961 until he died in 1994‟.



                                                                                       33
O/A 516172 – An outline application to develop another new bungalow on land
immediately to the south of the above site was REFUSED on 6 September 1972 on
grounds that it would have been outside established settlement boundaries and would
generate additional traffic on the local lanes. Again the applicant was Mr A C
Roberts.

B515572 – Permission GRANTED on 21 February 1972 to erect a silage barn and
leant-to to the north of the existing farm buildings at Higher Farm. This was built
shortly thereafter. Applicant: A C Roberts.

A516567 – Permission GRANTED 21 June 1973 for erection of extension to the
farmhouse at Higher Farm. Applicant: A C Roberts.

Consultations:

County Highways: No objection subject to normal highway conditions covering
adequate visibility at the new access point, adequate turning, setback of any gates
etc. [Their comments follow the submission of revised plans showing sufficient
forward visibility can be achieved for vehicles entering onto the road from the new
access].

Parish Council: No objection

Environment Agency: No objection

Wessex Water: Foul drainage must be to a suitable septic tank since the area is not
sewered. Surface water to soakaways acceptable in principle. There should be a 3
metre easement to the public water main at the road frontage of the site.

Local Planning Authority’s Agricultural Advisor: Remains of the opinion that there are
no grounds for approving this application since it is a clear attempt to split up the
assets of a working farm and thereby create a false new need for a new house (see
appraisal below for more detail).

Representations: Two objection letters from neighbouring owner/occupiers
essentially on grounds of both principle and siting.

In terms of principle one of these letters makes clear that there is no need for a new
dwelling, and particularly:
‘It is stretching the bounds of credence to assert that the existing bungalow, owned by
the applicant’s family, is not available to the farming business for the occupation of a
dairyman. It has been used for that purposed for many years and no explanation is
given as to why it is no longer available for this purpose’.

Planning Appraisal: The following two issues only are relevant to the determination
of this application:
 Is there a justifiable agricultural requirement for a new agricultural dwelling as
    opposed to the use of the existing bungalow, with reference to adopted policy in
    PPG 7 and District Plan policies?
 What has changed since the last refusal?


                                                                                       34
To answer the second question first, the only thing that has changed is that the
owners of the bungalow now allegedly want possession of it. Evidence was provided
as part of the last application that the applicant transferred the bungalow to his
daughters on 10 November 2000.

The question remains: is there a justifiable need?
The County Land Agent (our present agricultural adviser), said in respect of the last
application:
„Mr A C Roberts has signed a declaration dated 29 January 2002 that it was always
his father‟s intention to pass this bungalow to his (Mr A C Robert‟s daughters).
However, this bungalow has been part of the farm and provided the second key
worker‟s dwelling. If this results in a need for a new dwelling to be built, it should not
be separated from the farm, i.e. what would the situation have been if Mr A C
Robert‟s father had intended to pass the main farm to a third party – would this mean
a new main house should be built?

I strongly believe this is a family issue whereby the family is trying to split up the
various assets of a working farm. A new dwelling has been applied for which cannot
be supported under PPG 7 Annex 1. When I first met Mr Roberts he thought that his
two daughters might sell the bungalow. This being the case the farm should
purchase it rather than building new property‟.

In his latest report, Roger Sewill states (his Paragraph 5.4)……‟It does not particularly
matter which member of the Roberts family chose to dispose of the bungalow. It
must have been done in the belief that either it would remain in the family for the use
of the farm, or alternatively, it was no longer needed for the business. It is
understandable that when a family farm passes on to the next generation there may
well be a division of the assets. This is however one of the points made in PPG 7
where it states that it is the needs of the business that matter and not the personal
preferences or circumstances of any individuals involved‟.

It is clear that nothing has changed since the previous refusal. The sale of a dwelling
previously used for an agricultural worker would normally demonstrate a lack of
agricultural need. However, since in this case it is clear there is a need for two full-
time agricultural workers, the sale of this bungalow (or transfer to family members not
employed on the farm) can only be seen as a deliberate and blatant attempt to secure
a new house on a greenfield site. PPG 7, Annexe I, makes it very clear that such
circumstances must be taken into account when assessing the need for new
agricultural dwellings. Therefore, the proposal, essentially the same as that
previously refused last year, is contrary to PPG 7 and the District Plan Policy 2.16,
and is clearly and manifestly unacceptable.

Recommendation: That permission is REFUSED for the following reason:

1. There is an agreed labour requirement at Higher Farm for two key workers and
there are two conveniently situated existing dwellings sufficient to accommodate such
workers and their immediate dependants. Thus, having regard to all material
considerations, the Local Planning Authority is not satisfied that there is any
overriding essential agricultural need for a further separate dwellinghouse to meet the


                                                                                        35
legitimate needs of the holding. The proposal is therefore clearly contrary to
Structure Plan and (draft) District Local Plan Policy (Policies 1.7, 1.31 and 2.13 in
particular refer), and to Central Government Advice prescribed in Planning Policy
Guidance Note 7, Annexe I.




                                                                                        36
PIMPERNE (43)

Location: Garland House, Portman Road,         Ref No: 2/2003/0160
PIMPERNE                                       Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Bayview Developments Ltd

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: (Demolish house, swimming pool and outbuildings), erect 4 No. dwellings,
modify vehicular access and form car parking area

Conservation Area: Pimperne

Description of Site: Sloping site opposite the village school and occupied by a
modern chalet type bungalow and its garden. The land faces the rear of houses in
both Anvil Road and Salisbury Road.

Planning Policy: District Wide Local Plan Policies 1.8, 1.24, 1.25, 1.32, 2.6 and 2.10.
Structure Plan Polices S.G, S.H, H.C, H.G, I.D and EN.Q.

Relevant Planning History:
02/1126 – Erect 5 dwellings refused on grounds of danger to highway users,
overdevelopment.

Consultations:
Environment Agency – No comment.

Dorset Police – Detailed remarks.

Wessex Water – Comments.

Highways Officer – No objections – conditional.

Parish Council – Object, overdevelopment, insufficient parking, support neighbours
objections.

Representations:
5 – overlooking, noise from occupants, danger to road users (especially in connection
with the school), harm to Conservation Area, if planning permission granted a wall
should be built at rear and hedge retained, overdevelopment, bins etc. would be near
to neighbours, street lamps would be a nuisance, disturbance during building works,
existing building has become part of the local character.

Planning Appraisal:
The proposals are for demolition of the chalet type bungalow and the erection of 2
pairs of semi-detached houses facing Portman Road, but set back slightly and having
separate rear gardens. A communal access and car park would be formed at the
western end of the site providing 6 spaces and a bin store.



                                                                                     37
The proposal differs from the previous application that was refused permission in that
this is for 1 less dwelling; visibility splays would be provided and there would be 6
parking spaces for 4 houses rather than 4 spaces for 5.

If the principle of demolition of the chalet is acceptable, the site falls within the
Settlement Boundary where development for residential is acceptable in principle.
There is a mixed pattern of existing development in the vicinity, immediately west are
traditional terraced houses, with a road frontage, constructed of natural materials,
with small curtilages. This proposal would be of similar style, density and layout to
these cottages and therefore would not harm the character of the Conservation Area.
However, two of the houses are shown as rendered and should be constructed in
brick and flint.

The houses would have windows facing houses in Salisbury Road, but would be
some 17 metres apart and unlikely to lead to unacceptable overlooking, although the
number of houses would lead to slightly more overlooking than exists at present with
just one dwelling. The proximity of car parking and a bin store to the rear of cottages
in Anvil Road is considered acceptable being some 9 metres apart and separated by
a garage. Suitable walling along the perimeter of the site would further help avoid
noise, disturbance or overlooking of gardens.

The Highways Officer raises no objection on highway safety grounds and it is
acknowledged that there are a large number of road users visiting the school each
day. The provision of 6 spaces meets the requirements of the Local Plan Policy.

Disturbance during building works is not normally a planning consideration. Street
lighting would be considered only if a new public highway were formed, which is not
the case here.

Recommendation: Subject to all dwellings to be constructed in flint and brick, and to
the applicant entering into a Section 106 contribution of 4 x £500.00, and the following
conditions:
1. Commencement (full permission)
2. Prior written approcal of details
3. Materials (scheme approval)
4. Joinery details
5. Before the development commences a scheme showing precise details of fences,
    walls or other means of enclosure shall be submitted to the Local Planning
    Authority. Such scheme shall make provision for the erection of a wall on the
    east, south and west boundaries. Any such scheme shall require approval to be
    obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority. The approved means of
    enclosure shall be erected or constructed before the development is occupied.
    Reason: In the interest of the amenity of the area in accordance with Settlement
    Policy H, Environment Policies F and H and Implementation Policies A and D of
    the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policies 1.8 of the North
    Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).
6. Hard surfaces
7. Floor levels
8. Highway conditions



                                                                                     38
PIMPERNE (43)

Location: Garland House, Portman Road,              Ref No: 2/2003/9027
PIMPERNE                                            Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Bayview Developments Ltd

Application Type: Conservation Area Consent

Proposal: Demolish house, swimming pool and outbuildings

Conservation Area: Pimperne

Description of Site: Sloping site opposite the village school and occupied by a
modern chalet type bungalow and its garden. The land faces the rear of houses in
both Anvil Road and Salisbury Road.

Planning Policy: District Wide Local Plan Policy 1.25. Structure Plan Policy EN.Q.

Relevant Planning History: 02/1126 – Erect 5 dwellings refused on grounds of
danger to highway users, overdevelopment.

Consultations:
Parish Council – Object, overdevelopment, insufficient parking.

Representations:
5 overlooking, noise from occupants, danger to road users (especially in connection
with the school), harm to Conservation Area, if planning permission is granted a wall
should be built at rear and hedge retained, overdevelopment, bins, etc. would be near
to neighbours, street lamps would be a nuisance, disturbance during building works,
existing building has become part of the local character.

Planning Appraisal:
In the opinion of Officers, the existing building is of little historic, architectural or
intrinsic interest.

Recommendation: Grant Demolition Consent.

1. Timing of demolition works




                                                                                            39
PIMPERNE (43)

Location: The Old Post Office, Down              Ref No: 2/2003/0220
Road, PIMPERNE                                   Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Mr E Lukins

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect single storey extension to rear of existing unit

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site:
Former shop (Post Office) has been converted to form flats. There is a large timber
building immediately at the rear of the flats.

Planning Policy:
District Wide Local Plan Policies 1.8, 1.32 and 2.11.
Structure Plan Policies S.H, EN.F, I.D and EN.G.

Relevant Planning History:
2002/1080 – Extension on existing flat. Refusal reason: flat roof would be harmful to
amenity.
2002/1081 – Extension to form single storey dwelling. Refusal reasons:
overdevelopment, unworkable parking, flat roof
1998/0734 – Conversion of shop to 2 flats. Granted.

Consultations:
Parish Council – Objection, overdevelopment of confined site with insufficient parking.

Representations: None

Planning Appraisal:
The new proposals are for rebuilding of the large timber building on the same
footprint, but infilling a passageway that currently exists between it and the flats. The
original proposals for the flat conversion included an extension of one of the flats into
this building. This would still be the case, only there would be more accommodation
for the flat and the timber building would be rebuilt. Therefore, the overall footprint of
buildings and design would not change significantly and not appear cramped. A
pitched roof would be retained keeping the flat roof confined to a hidden lead valley.
There would be no change to parking, which exists in front and inside one end of the
timber building and the enlarged flat would not be likely to lead to a requirement for
additional parking.
Recommendation: Grant planning permission.
1. Commencement (full permission)
2. Prior written approval of details
3. Materials (scheme approval)



                                                                                        40
SHAFTESBURY (45)

Location: Land adjacent Long Cross Farm, Ref No: 2/2003/0236
Long Cross, SHAFTESBURY                  Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: Sitecroft Ltd

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect dwelling with double garage, create vehicular access

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: Approximately .085 ha (.21 acre) of land alongside the A30 and
within the settlement boundary of Long Cross. The site has a road frontage of 35
metres. There are dwellings on either side (and opposite) and open countryside
behind.

Planning Policy: Structure Plan AH: Built development within settlements.
District Wide Local Plan 1.7, 1.8 Standard assessment criteria, 2.6 Infill/Windfall
development sites, SB 16(i) (provision of footpath at southern side of A30).

Relevant Planning History: Nothing relevant

Consultations:
Town Council: No objection to a dwelling, but strong objection to removal of the
hedge, and concern over creation of a new access onto the A30 (which has a 40 mph
limit at this point).

Highway Authority: No objections subject to recommended conditions.

Wessex Water: No objections. Mains water and foul drainage available.

Representations: None

Planning Appraisal:

1.   There is no objection in principle as the site is within the settlement boundary and
     is sufficiently large to accommodate a dwelling. The dwelling itself has been re-
     designed in response to officers concerns to ensure that its appearance is
     appropriate in this context. The changes are “cosmetic” rather than fundamental,
     but are nonetheless worthwhile.

2.   It is not considered that there are any significant adverse amenity implications.
     There is for example no overlooking of any of the adjacent dwellings. Objectively,
     the roadside hedge is not a particularly attractive feature and in its overgrown
     state appears rather incongruous in this otherwise quite urban street scene. The
     Authority could apply a condition requiring a new hedge behind the visibility
     splay.



                                                                                      41
3.    It is essential to ensure satisfactory visibility at the access onto the main road.
      This can only be achieved by removing the hedge. Officers consider that the
      safety argument far outweighs the amenity argument for retaining the hedge.
      Policy SB 16(i) makes provision for a new footpath to be provided on the A30 on
      its southern side. This proposed development is on the north side of the road
      and is therefore unaffected by this policy.

4.    Accordingly, the proposal meets the policy criteria and it would be appropriate to
      grant planning permission.

Recommendation: That planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

1. a satisfactory legal undertaking to secure the necessary contribution towards
community infrastructure provision and the following conditions:

1.    Commencement (full permission)
2.    Prior written approval of details
3.    Materials (scheme approval)
4.    Landscape design proposals
5.    Foul & surface water drainage
6.    Access crossing construction
7.    Access, turning, garaging, parking provision
8.    Set back gates minimum distance
9.    Lower/maintain visibility splays to 0.6m
10.   No works on highway reservation

      NOTE: the applicant is advised that notwithstanding this consent Section 184 of
      the Highways Act 1980 requires the proper construction of vehicle crossings over
      kerbed footways, verges or other highway land. Before commencement of any
      works on the public highway Dorset County Council's Area Highways Manager
      (East) should be consulted to agree on the detailed specification. He can be
      contacted at the Area Office (East), Stour Park, Blandford St Mary, Blandford
      Forum, Dorset DT11 9LQ (Tel: 01258 450048).

      NOTE: The applicant and his successors are advised that the obstruction of the
      drive and/or turning space by the habitual parking of a second car, a boat,
      caravan, trailer or other obstruction may constitute an infringement of the
      condition relating to the construction and use of the turning space. Likewise such
      works as might otherwise after completion of the development be permitted
      development shall not be so permitted if they negate or reduce the turning space
      or drive.

      NOTE: In the interests of highway safety, provision shall be made to ensure that
      no surface water drains directly from the site onto the highway.




                                                                                       42
STURMINSTER NEWTON (54)

Location: Land rear of Woodmead,               Ref No: 2/2003/0034
STURMINSTER NEWTON                             Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: P M Hart

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect 2 No. houses

Conservation Area: Sturminster Newton

Description of Site:
Partly walled large garden area at rear of buildings fronting the Market Place,
extending to approximately 0.04 ha (0.1 acre), with surrounding residential
development. Provision for pedestrian access to “The Row”.

Planning Policy:
Structure Plan Policies S.H, EN.F and EN.Q.
District Wide Local Plan Policies:
        1.1 – Sustainable Development Strategy
        1.2 – Towns for Moderate/Limited Growth
        1.7 – Development within Settlement Boundaries
        1.8 – Standard Assessment Criteria
        1.24 – Character of Conservation Areas
        2.2 – Making Best Use of Housing Land
        2.6 – Infill/Windfall Development
        2.10 – Density of New Development

Relevant Planning History:
Planning Application 2/2002/0561(54) Outline planning application to develop land by
the erection of two dwellings. Not determined – pending a decision on the latest
application.

Consultations:
Town Council – Objections:
     1. Unsatisfactory access onto The Row due to poor visibility.
     2. Increased use of road junction with Market Place.
     3. Detrimental to residential amenity (of adjacent dwellings).
     4. Contrary to Structure Plan policy.

Highway Authority – No objection in principle, subject to conditions.

Environment Agency – No objection in principle.

Wessex Water – No objections.

County Archaeologist – No objections in principle, subject to conditions.



                                                                                  43
Conservation Officer – Comments awaited.

Building Control Officer – No objections. Proposal satisfies code B5 of the Building
Regulations.

Representations:
Two letters of objection.
Main points:
      1. Loss of residential amenity due to noise/domestic activity.
      2. Loss of character due to reduction in area of open space and visual impact
          of new houses.
      3. No vehicular access or parking.
      4. No vehicular access for emergency vehicles.
      5. Safety concerns re increase in traffic and pedestrians using The Row.
      6. To any facilitating demolition.
      7. To any obstruction of or alteration to any public footpath.

Planning Appraisal:
Planning Appraisal.

1. This is an application for Full planning permission (whereas the previous one –
   which is yet to be determined - was in Outline). The land lies close to the town
   centre, and is thus well within the Settlement Boundary, where there is an overall
   presumption in favour of further residential development, provided that it is
   deemed to be entirely appropriate in all material respects. Given that the land is
   also within the Conservation Area, and close to several Listed Buildings, it is
   necessary to give particular consideration to matters of siting, design and context.

2. The area of garden land behind some of the properties fronting the Market Place
   is quite extensive. This is one such example where .04 hectare (0.1 acre is
   “available”, which would normally indicate considerable development potential.
   However, the constraints of context in this case are considerable and serve to
   seriously reduce such potential. Objectively, Officers conclude that the site could
   readily accommodate two dwellings of the size(s) proposed, without markedly
   compromising the aesthetic value of the open space, or without incurring any
   undue loss of residential amenity. Furthermore, it is agreed that the most
   appropriate location for the two dwellings is probably as shown, ie away from the
   adjacent Listed Buildings, towards the western end of the site. The alignment and
   orientation of the proposed dwellings is sympathetic in that the building respects
   the linear “grain” of the old plot boundaries running back from the Market Place
   buildings.

3. With regard to design, it is evident that considerable attention has been paid to the
   historic context. The buildings are of relatively modest scales and proportions,
   and their appearance is, in detail, sympathetic to the local vernacular, which
   hereabouts is predominantly Victorian in character. The intention to use brick and
   slate is similarly accurate.

4. With regard to residential amenity, the proposed dwellings would not directly



                                                                                     44
     overlook any of the surrounding dwellings to any material degree. There would
     be some loss of privacy to the garden to the south, but any overlooking of
     property would be incidental, indirect, and rather distant. It is not realistic to aim
     for absolute seclusion in a town centre situation.

5. The lack of a vehicular access to, or car parking within, the site is consistent with
   Central Government Planning Advice, and indeed with District Wide Local Plan
   policy, for residential development in towns, which seek to reduce the impact
   traffic upon their historic fabric and character. It is inconvenient perhaps for
   residents not to be able to park their cars on site, and no doubt limits property
   values, but it is nonetheless acceptable in land use planning terms. Thus,
   pedestrian access to The Row is the only means of access to the site.

6. Building Control Officers advise that the proposed development meets the
   requirements of part B5 of the Building Regulations (fire precautions). The
   buildings are accessible to emergency vehicles by reason of their proximity to the
   adjacent streets, and additional fire protection is proposed, (and will be required)
   to be built into each of the houses.

7. Officers are not aware that the proposal has any adverse implications in respect of
   any public footpaths or other rights of way.

Summary/Conclusion:
    It is considered that the scheme is well conceived, both in terms of the nature
  and extent of the development proposed for this site, and the material design
  quality. The net effect would be to bring an under-utilised area of town-centre
  “backland” into productive and appropriately limited residential use, without
  harming the intrinsic character of the Conservation Area. Officers believe that the
  application is consistent with policy for the area. Thus, it is not considered that
  there are any sound planning reasons to withhold planning permission.

Recommendation: That full planning permission be granted subject to:

       1. A satisfactory legal undertaking to secure the requisite financial contribution
          to community infrastructure provision.

       2. Conditions:

1.   Commencement (full permission)
2.   Prior written approval of details
3.   Materials (scheme approval)
4.   Fencing and boundary treatment
5.   Hard surfaces
6.   Foul & surface water drainage
7.   PD Rights exclusion extensions




                                                                                          45
STURMINSTER NEWTON (54)

Location: Rear of Drapers House, Market        Ref No: 2/2003/0182
Place, STURMINSTER NEWTON                      Case Officer: Mr D Randles

Applicant: Mr & Mrs D James

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect 2 No.semi-detached dwellings

Conservation Area: Sturminster Newton

Description of Site: Partly walled large garden area at rear of buildings fronting the
Market Place, extending to approximately 0.04 ha (0.1 acre), with surrounding
residential development. Provision for pedestrian access from the Market Place.

Planning Policy:
Structure Plan SH, EN.F and EN.Q
District Wide Local Plan Policies
1.1 Sustainable Development Strategy
1.3 Towns for Moderate/Limited Growth
1.7 Development within Settlement Boundaries
1.8 Standard Assessment Criteria
1.23 Setting of Listed Buildings
1.24 Character of Conservation Areas
2.2 Making Best Use of Housing Land
2.6 Infill/Windfall Development
2.10 Density of New Development

Relevant Planning History:
PA. 2/2002/0876(54) – Refusal of planning permission for two dwellings 3 March
2003. Reasons:

1. In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the erection of dwellings on the site
  proposed, behind existing dwellings, lacking a proper road frontage and served by
  a long and inconvenient access, amounts to an unacceptable form of backland
  development, contrary to the principles of good planning and is contrary to
  Settlement Policies H and I, Housing Policy C, Environment Policies F and H and
  Implementation Policies A and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure
  Plan and Policies 1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 2.5 and 2.9 of the North Dorset District Wide Local
  Plan (First Revision).

2. The proposal would constitute overdevelopment of the site resulting in a
  development of cramped appearance damaging to the visual amenity and
  character of the area, contrary to Settlement Policies H and I, Housing Policy C,
  Environment Policies F and H and Implementation Policies A and D of the
  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policies 1.1, 1.7, 1.8, 2.5 and
  2.9 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).



                                                                                     46
3. The proposal, by reason of the limited access to the site, would have inadequate
  access for emergency services and would therefore be contrary to Policy I.D of the
  Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and Policy 1.9 of the North Dorset
  District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).

Consultations:
Town Council: Objections as previously ie for the reasons on the refusal notice.

Highway Authority: No objection in principle, subject to conditions.

Environment Agency: No objection in principle.

Wessex Water: No objections.

County Archaeologist: Comments awaited.

Building Control Officer: No objections. Proposal satisfied code B5 of the Building
Regulations.

Representations: One letter of objection. Main points:

1.   Unsatisfactory pedestrian access to the Market Place.
2.   Detrimental to residential amenity of adjacent dwellings.
3.   Detrimental to character of Conservation Area.

Planning Appraisal:

1. This is an application for Full planning permission. It is essentially the same
   proposal as before (PA 2/2002/0876) i.e. the same plans have been used. This
   time however, the applicant has sought and obtained the “approval” of Dorset Fire
   Officer and our Building Control Officer (see paragraph 6). The land lies close to
   the town centre, and is thus well within the Settlement Boundary, where there is
   an overall presumption in favour of further residential development, provided that
   it is deemed to be entirely appropriate in all material respects. Given that the land
   is also within the Conservation Area, and close to several Listed Buildings, it is
   necessary to give particular consideration to matters of siting, design and context.

2. The area of garden land behind some of the properties fronting the Market Place
   is quite extensive. This is one such example where .04 hectare (0.1 acre is
   “available”, which would normally indicate considerable development potential.
   However, the constraints of context in this case are considerable and serve to
   seriously reduce such potential. Objectively, Officers conclude that the site could
   readily accommodate two dwellings of the size(s) proposed, without markedly
   compromising the aesthetic value of the open space, or without incurring any
   undue loss of residential amenity. Furthermore, it is agreed that the most
   appropriate locations for the two dwellings is probably as shown, ie away from the
   adjacent Listed Buildings, towards the western end of the site. The alignment and
   orientation of the proposed dwellings is sympathetic in that the building respects
   the linear “grain” of the old plot boundaries running back from the Market Place
   buildings.


                                                                                      47
3. With regard to design, it is evident that considerable attention has been paid to
   the historic context. The building is relatively modest in scale and proportion, and
   the appearance is, in detail, sympathetic to the local vernacular, which hereabouts
   is predominantly Victorian in character. The intention to use natural stone under
   small clay plain tiles is appropriate.

4.    With regard to residential amenity, the proposed dwellings would not directly
      overlook any of the surrounding dwellings to any material degree. Any
      overlooking of property or adjacent gardens would be incidental, indirect, and
      rather distant. Although there would be some increase in “domestic” activity, this
      has to be seen in context. Officers conclude that the area behind the Market
      Place would remain relatively quiet and secluded. Similarly, the increase in
      pedestrian “traffic” using the (only) footpath link to the main street does not mean
      that the path would become a busy thoroughfare.

5. The lack of a vehicular access to, or car parking within, the site is consistent with
   Central Government Planning Advice, and indeed with District Wide Local Plan
   Policy, for residential development in towns, which seek to reduce the impact
   traffic upon their historic fabric and character. It is inconvenient perhaps for
   residents not to be able to park their cars on site, and no doubt limits property
   values, but it is nonetheless acceptable in land use planning terms. Thus, the
   proposed pedestrian access to the Market Place is acceptable.

6. Building Control Officers advise that the proposed development meets the
   requirements of part B5 of the Building Regulations (fire precautions). The
   buildings are accessible to emergency vehicles by reason of their proximity to the
   adjacent streets, and additional fire protection is proposed, (and will be required)
   to be built into each of the houses. This would include, for example, the
   installation of a domestic sprinkler system.

7. Officers are not aware that the proposal has any adverse implications in respect
   of any public footpaths or other rights of way.

Summary/Conclusion:

      It is considered that the scheme is well conceived, both in terms of the nature and
     extent of the development proposed for this site, and the material design quality.
     The net effect would be to bring an under-utilised area of town-centre “backland”
     into productive and appropriately limited residential use, without harming the
     intrinsic character of the Conservation Area. Officers believe that the application is
     consistent with policy for the area. Thus, it is not considered that there are any
     sound planning reasons to withhold planning permission.

Recommendation: That full planning permission be granted subject to:

     A satisfactory legal undertaking to secure the requisite contribution to community
     infra-structure provision and the following conditions:

1. Commencement (full permission)


                                                                                        48
2.   Prior written approval of details
3.   Materials (scheme approval)
4.   Fencing and boundary treatment
5.   Hard surfaces
6.   Foul & surface water drainage
7.   PD Rights exclusion extensions

          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WINTERBORNE KINGSTON (70)

Location: River Barn, West Street,                        Ref No: 2/2002/1158
WINTERBORNE KINGSTON                                      Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: A & M Repairs

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect workshop extension and office.

Conservation Area: No

Deferred from: 25 February 2003 Meeting.

Reason for deferral:
To request the applicant to either withdraw the application and resubmit or amend the
application to regularise the use of the building and land.

Update:
The applicant has submitted an application for renewal of permission for the original
workshop (2/2003/0211). The report is included on this agenda. If it is granted
permission, the Officer sees no reason to withhold planning permission for the
extensions.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission.

1.   Commencement (Full permission)
2.   Prior written approval of details
3.   Machinery operation
4.   The premises shall be used solely for agricultural plant and machinery repairs
     and maintenance and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in
     Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use
     Classes) Order 1987, or any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory
     instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
     Reason: To ensure that the premises are not used for a purpose which would be
     damaging to the amenity of the locality in accordance with Environment Policies F
     and H and Implementation Policies A and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and
     Poole Structure Plan and Policy 1.8 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan
     (First Revision).



                                                                                                     49
APPENDIX DEFERRED FROM 25 FEBRUARY 2003 MEETING


WINTERBORNE KINGSTON (70)

Location: River Barn, West Street,               Ref No: 2/2002/1158
WINTERBORNE KINGSTON                             Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: A & M Repairs

Application Type: Full planning permission

Proposal: Erect workshop extension and office.

Conservation Area: No

Description of Site: The land is situated in open countryside. There is an
agricultural building, a dwelling as well as an outbuilding on the site. The site is
visible from the lane between Winterborne Whitechurch and Winterborne Kingston.
The applicant’s business involves the repair of agricultural machinery.

Planning Policy:
District Wide Local Plan Policies 3.5 and 1.8
Structure Plan Policies I.D, EN.F, S.I and E.H

Relevant Planning History:
91/0130 – Permission granted for an agricultural shed with Condition 7 specifying it
was only to be used for agricultural purposes.
95/0585 – Relief of condition allowing agricultural use only granted personal and for
repair of agricultural plant and machinery only until 31 December 1998. The reason
for the temporary nature of this approval was to have control over the use of the site
(i.e. to retain it to agricultural use). This was never renewed and has lapsed. It
related to the building only.


Consultations:
Highway Officer – Request parking/turning facilities.
Economic Development Officer – Support as it consolidates an existing business
providing employment in a rural location.
Parish Council – Support – “The applicant has informed the Council that his parents,
who will be financing the development from the sale proceeds of their current
property, will occupy the annexe above the double garage. It is their intention that
River Barn should remain in the family for generations to come. The Parish Council
supports these applications. The business is thriving and we are keen to see it
expand and bring additional employment to the area. We request that if the
application is approved a condition be attached stating that the annexe cannot be
sold as a separate entity."
Environment Agency – No objections, comments supplied




                                                                                       50
Planning Appraisal: The applicant states the business was established some eight
years ago by virtue of permission 2/95/0585 and employs three people plus his
parents. The extension would form additional workshop and office areas. The
expansion may require two further employees. However the business is currently
operating without permission.

The extensions would be constructed in a similar style and materials of construction
as the original building. The expansion of small businesses with planning permission
in open countryside where existing land and buildings are re-used is normally
acceptable, but these would be large new build extensions for non-agricultural
purposes for a business which appears to be unauthorised. Since permission for this
use has lapsed. No application has been made to renew the permission.

Recommendation: Refuse for the following reason.

1. Permission for use of the building for workshop purposes lapsed on 31 December
   1998. No permission was sought for retension of the use. The erection of new
   extension for workshop purposes would therefore be development in the
   countryside, harmful to the character and appearance of the area and contrary to
   policies EN.F, S.I and E.H. of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan
   and Policies 1.8 and 3.5 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan.

     ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

WINTERBORNE KINGSTON (70)

Location: River Barn, West Street,                         Ref No: 2/2003/0211
WINTERBORNE KINGSTON                                       Case Officer: Mr J Lytton-Trevers

Applicant: Mr N Amey

Application Type: Full planning permission (change of use)

Proposal: Change use of agricultural building to workshop for repair and
maintenance of agricultural plant and machinery

Conservation Area: No

Planning Policy:

District Wide Local Plan Policies 3.5 and 1.8
Structure Plan Policies I.D, EN.F, S.I and E.H.

Relevant Planning History:

91/0130 – Permission granted for an agricultural shed with Condition 7 specifying it
was only to be used for agricultural purposes.
95/0585 – Relief of condition allowing agricultural use only granted personal and for
repair of agricultural plant and machinery only until 31 December 1998. The reason
for the temporary nature of this approval was to have control over the use of the site


                                                                                                            51
(ie to retain it to agricultural use). This was never renewed and has lapsed. It related
to the building only.
02/1158 – Erect extension and office – undetermined.

Consultations:

Economic Development Officer – Support
Parish Council – No objection
Highways – No objection conditional
Environment Agency – No objection conditional
Environmental Health – No objection

Representations: None

Planning Appraisal: Planning permission for use of this building has lapsed and
therefore this application seeks to renew the permission to use it for repair of
agricultural plant and machinery. It was formerly erected for agricultural purposes,
and being of substantial construction and situated some distance from the highway,
meets criteria stipulated in policy 3.5 for the re-use of buildings in the countryside.
There are no near neighbours who could be affected by activities at the premises.
The officer would not wish the use to extend beyond the confines of the building and
its immediate surroundings. Therefore a condition should be imposed to prevent this.

Recommendation: Grant planning permission
1. Commencement (Full permission)
2. Prior written approval of details
3. Machinery operation
4. The premises shall be used solely for agricultural plant and machinery repairs
    and maintenance and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in
    Classes B1, B2 and B8 of the Schedule to the Town and Country Planning (Use
    Classes) Order 1987, or any provision equivalent to that class in any statutory
    instrument revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification).
    Reason: To ensure that the premises are not used for a purpose which would be
    damaging to the amenity of the locality in accordance with Environment Policies F
    and H and Implementation Policies A and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and
    Poole Structure Plan and Policy 1.8 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan
    (First Revision).
 5. No oil, liquid petroleum product or liquid chemical shall be stored on site except
    within an area agreed with the Local Planning Authority before the premises are
    occupied. Such an area is to be contained in a lockable building or compound
    and surrounded by a bund capable of retaining a volume ten per cent greater
    than the total stored.
    Reason: To minimise the risk of pollution in accordance with Implementation
    Policies C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan and
    Policies 1.9 and 1.15 of the North Dorset District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).
 6. All storage shall take place within the building and areas edged red on the
    attached plan except for visiting or unloading which shall be restricted to the area
    edged green. No storage shall take place within the area edged blue.




                                                                                     52
Reason: In the interests of the amenity of the area in accordance with
Implementation Policies C and D of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure
Plan and Policy 1.9 of the North Dorst District Wide Local Plan (First Revision).




                                                                              53
DECISIONS (APPROVALS) ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
 MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

                     28th March 2003 - 16th April 2003

Application No     Applicant              Description of development
                                          and Date of Issue

   BLANDFORD FORUM (03)
   2/2002/9135  Hon Sarah Loch            Attach protection against pigeons , The
                                          Old House, The Close, BLANDFORD
                                          (4th April 2003)
   BLANDFORD FORUM (03)
   2/2003/0090  Mr & Mrs M Gibbs          (Demolish garage) erect two storey
                                          side extension , Little Summerhill,
                                          Milldown Road, BLANDFORD
                                          (11th April 2003)
   BLANDFORD FORUM (03)
   2/2003/0167  R Stanley                 Carry out alterations to form offices on
                                          upper floor , Unit B4, Clump Farm
                                          Industrial Estate, Higher Shaftesbury
                                          Road, BLANDFORD
                                          (16th April 2003)
   BLANDFORD FORUM (03)
   2/2003/0169  A J Newland               Erect first floor side extension , 9
                                          Liddington Crescent, BLANDFORD
                                          (8th April 2003)
   BOURTON (05)
   2/2003/0107     Mrs O White            Renewal of Outline Planning
                                          Permission No. 2/2000/0083 to
                                          develop land for residential purposes ,
                                          Rugby Cottage, BOURTON
                                          (2nd April 2003)
   CHILD OKEFORD (11)
   2/2003/0148  Mr & Mrs M Hayworth       Erect single storey extension ,
                                          Wynchards, Haywards Lane, CHILD
                                          OKEFORD
                                          (12th April 2003)
   GILLINGHAM (20)
   2/2003/0029     A Macey                Erect first floor extension to rear , 8
                                          Shaftesbury Road GILLINGHAM
                                          (14th April 2003)
   GILLINGHAM (20)
   2/2003/0184     Mr & Mrs B Wheeler     Erect rear conservatory , Cloud Nine,
                                          Wavering Lane, GILLINGHAM
                                          (16th April 2003)
   HINTON ST MARY (26)
   2/2002/9131   Hinton St Mary Estates   Reroof single storey rear extension,
                                          install conservation style roof light,
                                          carry out internal and external
                                          alterations , Barters Farmhouse,
                                          HINTON ST MARY
                                          (8th April 2003)

                                                                                     2
DECISIONS (APPROVALS) ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
 MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

                     28th March 2003 - 16th April 2003

Application No     Applicant             Description of development
                                         and Date of Issue

   IWERNE COURTNEY (28)
   2/2002/1078  Mr & Mrs R Cox           Demolish single storey extension and
                                         outbuildings, erect single storey
                                         extension and install 2 no. dormer
                                         windows. , Church Farm House,
                                         IWERNE COURTNEY
                                         (16th April 2003)
   IWERNE COURTNEY (28)
   2/2002/9167  Mr & Mrs R Cox           Demolish single storey extension and
                                         outbuildings, erect single storey
                                         extension, install 2 no. dormer
                                         windows, carry out internal and
                                         external alterations. , Church Farm
                                         House, IWERNE COURTNEY
                                         (16th April 2003)
   LYDLINCH (33)
   2/2003/0166     Mr A R Mitchell       Erect rear conservatory , Tawny Owls,
                                         4 Broad Common Cottages, King Stag,
                                         LYDLINCH
                                         (14th April 2003)
   LYDLINCH (33)
   2/2003/0177     Mr K J Woodward       Erect single storey side extension ,
                                         Myrtle Cottage, Kings Stag, LYDLINCH
                                         (16th April 2003)
   LYDLINCH (33)
   2/2003/0186     Jonathan Elwes        Erect stables , The Old Rectory,
                                         LYDLINCH
                                         (16th April 2003)
   MANSTON (34)
   2/2003/0168     Mr S J M Dewing       Renewal of planning permission
                                         2/1998/0145 for use of farm buildings
                                         as artist studio, showroom and
                                         classroom , Connegar Farm,
                                         MANSTON
                                         (8th April 2003)
   OKEFORD FITZPAINE (42)
   2/2003/0146  Mr & Mrs Martin          Erect two storey side extension , 9
                                         Netherway Cottages, Lower Street,
                                         OKEFORD FITZPAINE
                                         (12th April 2003)
   PIMPERNE (43)
   2/2003/0030   D Dalton & Son Ltd      Erect grain store and fertilizer and
                                         machinery store , Pimperne Dairy
                                         Farm Unit, PIMPERNE
                                         (16th April 2003)

                                                                                 3
DECISIONS (APPROVALS) ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
 MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

                    28th March 2003 - 16th April 2003

Application No    Applicant              Description of development
                                         and Date of Issue

   PIMPERNE (43)
   2/2003/0097   Mr J West               Erect two storey side extension , White
                                         Gates House, Church Road,
                                         PIMPERNE
                                         (31st March 2003)
   SHAFTESBURY (45)
   2/2003/0117  Young & Co Brewery plc   Display replacement signage including
                                         individual letters and illuminated swing
                                         sign, non illuminated amenity boards
                                         and refurbishment of existing
                                         projecting sign , The Mitre Public
                                         House, 23 High Street,
                                         SHAFTESBURY
                                         (4th April 2003)
   SHAFTESBURY (45)
   2/2003/0213  Mr & Mrs N Mullins       Erect single storey side extension , 8
                                         Cranborne Drive, SHAFTESBURY
                                         (16th April 2003)
   SHAFTESBURY (45)
   2/2003/9021  Young & Co Brewery plc   Display replacement signage including
                                         individual letters and illuminated swing
                                         sign, non illuminated amenity boards
                                         and refurbishment of existing
                                         projecting sign , The Mitre Public
                                         House, 23 High Street,
                                         SHAFTESBURY
                                         (4th April 2003)
   SILTON (47)
   2/2003/0173    Mr & Mrs H Nickerson   Erect single storey and two storey
                                         extensions , 7 Fantley Lane, SILTON
                                         (14th April 2003)
   STOURTON CAUNDLE (53)
   2/2003/0185 D Swain                   Erect garage , Holt Farm, Holt Hill,
                                         Alweston, STOURTON CAUNDLE
                                         (16th April 2003)
   WINTERBORNE STICKLAND (71)
   2/2003/0153  Mr Failes & Ms Spencer   Erect rear first floor extension , 3 West
                                         Street, WINTERBORNE STICKLAND
                                         (12th April 2003)




                                                                                     4
DECISIONS (APPROVALS) ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
 MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

                  28th March 2003 - 16th April 2003

Application No   Applicant            Description of development
                                      and Date of Issue


   WINTERBORNE WHITECHURCH (72)
   2/2003/9025  Y Kovach              Re-thatch with water reed and flush
                                      ridge , Church Cottages, Chescombe
                                      Lane, WINTERBORNE
                                      WHITECHURCH
                                      (8th April 2003)




                                                                            5
 DECISIONS (REFUSALS) ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL
 MANAGER OF PLANNING SERVICES UNDER DELEGATED POWERS

                    28th March 2003 - 16th April 2003

Application No    Applicant             Description of development
                                        and Date of Issue


   BLANDFORD FORUM (03)
   2/2003/0158  Atlanta Investments     (Demolish garage) erect 3 no. houses,
                                        form vehicular access and parking ,
                                        Rear of 33 East Street, BLANDFORD
                                        8th April 2003
   CHARLTON MARSHALL (09)
   2/2003/0191 Miss J Scott             (Demolish garage and lean-to) erect 1
                                        No. dwelling, form parking area , Land
                                        at 9 Park Hill, CHARLTON MARSHALL
                                        14th April 2003
   SPETISBURY (48)
   2/2003/0139    Mr & Mrs T Hack       Erect two storey extension to form 1
                                        no. new dwelling , Jessamine Cottage,
                                        High Street, SPETISBURY
                                        8th April 2003




                                                                                1
           DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE – 29 April 2003
                         PLANNING APPEALS
                Report of Development Control Manager

                                       APPEALS LODGED
                                                                           METHOD OF
P.A. No.           APPLICANT/PROPOSAL
                                                                           DETERMINATION
                   Mr D Pomeroy
                   Application for Certificate of Lawfulness for use of
2/2002/0614        agricultural tied dwelling without compliance to
                                                                           PUBLIC INQUIRY
DR                 condition attached to planning permission 2/1979/0118
                   Moores Farm Bungalow, West Lane, HAZELBURY
                   BRYAN
                   Mr M G White
2/2002/0429        Lay grass airstrip and use existing hangar to store     WRITTEN
JLT                private aircraft                                        REPRESENTATIONS
                   Disused airfield, TARRANT RUSHTON
                   Mr S L Simmons
                   Use of agricultural buildings for keeping of hunting
1348/Enf
                   hounds                                                  PUBLIC INQUIRY
SG
                   Site at land at Old Lynch Farm, Lynch Lane, WEST
                   STOUR
                                APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED

P.A. No.           APPLICANT/PROPOSAL                                      APPEAL DECISION
                   Mr & Mrs A Morgan
2/2002/0298        Develop land by erection of dwelling and garage         APPEAL ALLOWED
                   Hartfoot, Hartfoot Lane, Ansty, HILTON
                   H & L Kerley & Son Ltd
                                                                           APPEAL
2/2002/0509        Erect two storey and single storey extensions
                                                                           DISMISSED
                   Bushes Farm, WINTERBORNE ZELSTON
                                     APPEALS WITHDRAWN
P.A. No.           APPLICANT/PROPOSAL
                                               None

                           COSTS AWARDED AGAINST THE COUNCIL
P.A. No.           APPLICANT/PROPOSAL

                                               None




planning/appeals/apscttee.doc

				
DOCUMENT INFO