Agenda item

Erect 6 no. Orchard Rooms and installation of two bridges.

 

The Committee considered an application to erect six orchard rooms and the installation of two bridges at Parnham Eastate, Parnham, Beaminster. The six orchard rooms would be six units of holiday accommodation and have 1 bed and 1 bathroom.

 

The planning officer’s presentation - in taking into account the provisions of the Update Sheet circulated to members prior to the meeting - showed a map of the local area, how the holiday accommodation would look, bridge’s location, the street scene and how the orchard rooms would be separated and oriented, as well as dimensions and floor plans parking spaces within the car parking area and the key planning issues and the principle of development.

 

The officer added that the site would be accessed from the northern entrance and that two units of the orchard rooms would be located in the existing fruit orchard on the opposite side of river. The committee was told that there would be outside baths and the inspiration for the orchard rooms was taken from beehives. It was also made known that the rooms will be built from timber cladding with steel roofs and bridges constructed of oak.

 

The Public benefits were outlined: as additional income for the estate and increased public access to a heritage asset. These benefits considered to outweigh potential harm and being in a relatively discreet location, highways raised no objection, with a low flood risk (flood zone 1 but foot bridges in flood zone 3).

 

It was also made aware that Parnham House was located outside the DDB but policy allowed for tourism development. The development had been determined to have less than substantial harm to the icehouse structure.

 

 An oral update was given regarding the plans list condition. On the update sheet it relates to two proposed locations plans as “rev b” and a proposed site plan as “rev d” but should be “rev a” for both location plans and “rev b” for the proposed site plan.

 

The Chairman confirmed with the committee that they had read the update sheets, as the application had two recommendations which were amended, and conditions updated.

 

The conditions were outlined for landscaping, flood risk assessment, evacuation plan, flood warning and biodiversity plan. 

 

Richard Smith a member of the Parnham planning response group was invited to address the committee and raised points on their behalf. He acknowledged the attempt to create a new hotel and lodge accommodation with benefits for employment and commerce. He informed of the shortcomings such as, the planning statement had no clear written vision or timescale on restoration and development, the business plan was short on financial detail, a lack of a masterplan, no local consultation with residents and rejection by historic England.

 

He requested a restriction to the house being sold separately and a legally binding agreement to restore the house.

 

Ed Grant addressed the committee about Parnham House being in a desperate state and the need to establish a business. He mentioned that the orchard rooms had been designed to fit in with the environment and were sustainable with minimal environmental impacts and added that the orchard’s yields were undesirable and would be more successful being planted elsewhere.

 

Cllr Chris Turner, of Beaminster Town Council, addressed the Committee and made comments about the two applications. He informed the Committee about planning and the long-term considerations, the A3066 northern entrance and a 30-mph speed limit needed to be drawn south away from Beaminster by 200-300 meters which would reduce the speed for those accessing Parnham estate. He stated that a traffic regulation order needed to be implemented before entertainment was granted.

 

Cllr Rebecca Knox, the Ward member, addressed the committee and made the committee aware of the scale of investment, work in the owner’s being committed to the restoration of the house and participation from local businesses.

 

The planning officer responded and was given the opportunity to clarify any points.

 

She clarified that the proposal was acceptable under the S106 agreement which was the intensification of the existing overnight accommodation already at Parnham estate and included in the west wing, butler’s apartment, and dower house. The officer then went on to clarify the benefits of a master plan, but that the application could not be refused on the lack of a master plan.

 

Steve Savage, Transport Development Liaison Manager, addressed the highway issues that were raised: speed data, speed limits, vehicle speeds, explaining the applicant’s vision on scale and size of the visibility displays required and that there was no justification for extending the speed limit.

 

Cllr Kate Wheller asked questions regarding the colour and nature of the roofs on the pods. Cllr Paul Kimber asked a technical question regarding the replanting of trees in the orchard. Cllr Bill Pipe asked questions of the opening schedule for the ice house and why is it not open for longer. 

 

The senior planning officer provided clarification on all of these issues, particularly that the limitations on the icehouse openings was due to the security of the estate.

 

Proposed by Kate Wheller, seconded by Susan Cocking

 

Resolved

That application P/FUL/2021/05746 be granted planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the report and in taking into account the provisions of the Update Sheet, as necessary.