Agenda item

Convert building into 1 No. dwelling (Remove roof, increase height of walls, erect new roof).

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 existing building and existing plan, path that runs behind the building, proposed front and rear elevations. Upstairs two bedrooms, bathroom, and landing.

Public Participation

Caroline O’Toole.

She explained that the proposed two storey three-bedroom house would replace the stores/garages which abut my patio garden. The wall of the garage was also my garden wall boundary a shared wall, covered with sturdy trellis erected for security, and covered with mature climbers.

One of the fundamental inaccuracies in the most recent drawings 26 01 2026, by the developer described the kitchen extension of my home, Glenthorne House as a "lean-to” to be clear: it was not. It was a solid construction, a permanent and integral part of my living space, as far as I’m aware built at the same time as the house in 1893 (see photos).

By mischaracterizing my property, the developer had failed to accurately assess the impact on my "Right to Light." This proposed building was too large and too close; it would significantly overshadow my kitchen, stripping away the natural light from a room we use every day.

The proposal represented a clear case of overdevelopment. The massing of the building was simply too large for the footprint of the land leading to environmental harm that would be impossible to mitigate without resorting to a ‘credit scheme’. We would be looking at a significant loss of local flora and fauna/vegetation which provided a buffer for noise, and habitat for urban wildlife. You cannot replace established nature with bricks and mortar and claim there was no ecological cost.

Regarding infrastructure: the parking situation in this area was already at a breaking point. Many of her neighbours on Bristol Road had also objected and expressed concern. This was a busy road with heavy traffic throughout the day; from 25 plus school coaches and large heavy farm vehicles.  Adding further residential units with insufficient parking provision was a recipe for gridlock and, more importantly, a risk to the safety of the students, pedestrians and local residents. The plan for a single small garage was unlikely to accommodate comfortably a modern family car, electric charging point and reversing in and out would be dangerous. This would put further demands on road parking; note there was only limited parking on the east side of the road.  It should also be noted Quarr Drive at the back had reached saturation point regarding parking. If planning went ahead there would be huge disruption, exacerbated by the (lengthy)delivery of materials, storage space and the provision of welfare facilities. Where? On council maintained green space? 

The footpath from Bristol Road to Quarr Drive and the Nature Reserve would undoubtedly be compromised, quite possibly blocked with scaffolding etc and likely damaged, preventing safe, public access, to and from the Quarr nature reserve. Many local residents with restricted mobility use this footpath as do pram users and dog walkers.

The developer had repeatedly rebranded this project - calling a near-entirely new development a "store house conversion", no doubt to reframe the development in a more positive and less impactful light. Please see the letter of George Tatham and his substantial research which refutes the claim that these buildings were ever stables in the early 19^th C.

This was the second time a variation of this plan has come before you. The core issues - the scale, the light, heavy traffic, and the environmental impact - have still not been addressed. She urged the committee to see this for what it was: an attempt to cram too much into too small a space at the expense of the existing community.

Cllr Margaret Crossman to speak on behalf of Sherborne Town Council.

Sherborne Town Council felt that the application was lacking in essential details and was incomplete and the plans were unclear. The adverse impact on neighbouring amenity, the new structure would be detrimental to the house to the north Glenthorne House and the houses on Quarr drive to the west. The proposal would result in overdevelopment of the site. It’s bounded by the public highway and by footpaths and the building will occupy most of the site. The secondary school for the town was a little way up the road, and the road gets very busy and there’s a lot of child pedestrians in the morning and evenings.

A vote was held to continue the meeting past 3 hours.

Members questions and comments

• Members asked about the parking situation around site, and the loss of light on the neighbouring house, and if there were any renewables?
• It was asked if the garage was for storage and if a vehicle would fit.
• A comment was made that width of the pavement was too narrow.
• Questions asked about garden space and parking and the safety of occupants of the house as the door opens straight onto the pavement.
• A comment was made that there would be enough space for push chair to go down and questions about what were the building materials. The building must retain character of buildings charm.

The Planning Officer, Cass Worman responded that a light assessment had not been provided. Highways had no objections to the lack of provision of parking, and there were no renewables. There was a small area to the rear of the property as amenity space but that the side walled garden would be the primary garden area. The door was sat further back and would not open directly onto the pavement.  The Red brick would be maintained at the front, and top timber clad, at the top of house.

Cllr Vitali Left the meeting and gave his apologies. 

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 APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Val Pothecary, and seconded by Cllr Belinda Ridout. 

Decision: To grant planning permission with conditions set out in the officer’s report and outlined in the appendix of the minutes.