Agenda item

Erect 2 No. dwellings (Class C3), new vehicular accesses and associated works. Demolish existing agricultural buildings and polytunnels.

The Case Officer provided members with the following updates:

• There was a typo in the officer’s report relating to cubic meters.

With the aid of a visual presentation including plans and aerial photographs, the Case Officer identified the site and explained the proposal and relevant planning policies to members. Photographs of the existing and proposed site plans, floor plans, proposed structure elevations and roof plans were shown. Members were also provided with details of the proposed woodland planting as well as the landscape mitigation plan. The presentation included images from different viewpoints and the Case Officer set out the key issues of principle of development, referring to the character and appearance as well as nutrient neutrality. The officer’s recommendation was to A: GRANT, subject to the completion of a legal agreement under section 106 of the town and country planning act 1990 (as amended) in a form to be agreed by the legal services manager to secure the following:

• Secure a 0.9ha woodland managed in the long term
• Monitoring fee of £1,510

And the conditions (and their reasons) listed at the end of the report.

Recommendation B: Refuse permission for failing to secure the obligations above the agreement is not completed by (31 August 2024) or such extended time as agreed by the Head of Planning.

Public Participation

Objectors made representations to committee stating that the proposal did not fit in with the character of the area, was damaging to the village and made note of the number of written objections made from other residents. Mr Faber highlighted that members should have represented the best interests of local residents and invited them to view the site before reaching a decision. Objectors were also concerned about the scale of the development as it was greater than the existing barn and noted that the polytunnels were disused. They urged members to refuse the proposal.

The agent made representation and explained that they were keen to remove an eyesore for a beautiful village. Ms Curtis highlighted to members that changes had been made to accommodate officer requests and that they had been working tirelessly to present a design and layout scheme which was of high quality. The agent noted the site benefits and was aware of an increase in scale, however, informed members that it was less than a 10% increase. Ms Curtis hoped members would support the officer’s recommendation of granting the high-quality scheme which would have introduced two new families to the area.

The Local Ward member also made representation in objection and felt that the proposal was not acceptable and should have been refused. Councillor Legg was concerned regarding the scale of the development and did not feel as though the proposed tree planting was sufficient to improve the quality of the discharge of the units.

Members questions and comments

• Concerns regarding the use of the barn and the scale of the proposal as the footprint was larger than the original building.
• Polytunnels weren’t permanent structures.
• Clarification regarding whether the barn met permitted development requirements.
• Impacts on local heritage assets.
• Concerns regarding screening.
• Members felt that the proposal was unsympathetic to the character of the area and would have been harmful.
• Concerns regarding there being a significant number of windows on site which would have been intrusive to the countryside.
• Members were not satisfied with the premise.
• The proposal was larger than the existing barn.
• Impacts to the landscape due to excessive amount of placing and light pollution.

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to REFUSE the officer’s recommendation as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Val Pothecry, and seconded by Cllr Sherry Jespersen.

Decision: To overturn the officer’s recommendation and refuse planning permission for the following reasons;

• The proposal by reason of its mass, layout, scale, and design would have harmed the character and appearance of the area. The increase in plot size, large size of the dwellings, and the level of glazing would have resulted in an urbanisation that would be out of keeping with the village and the design would not have been in harmony with the area as a whole. The proposal would’ve also resulted in light pollution. Therefore, the proposal would be contrary to the West Dorset and Weymouth Local Plan policy ENV1, ENV10 and ENV12 and the NPPF.