Appeal 6001214

The appeal is dismissed.

The main issues are: • whether the appeal site is a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to development plan policies; and • whether the proposal would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Dorset National Landscape (DNL).

The appeal site comprises a detached stable and two detached stores on open land. The buildings and associated land are approached via a long narrow access track and have been used previously as equestrian land and stables. The proposal is to demolish the buildings and erect a building of a similar size for use as holiday accommodation.

The spatial strategy for residential development is set out in Policy SUS2 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (2015) (LP). The strategy is based on the needs and size of the area’s settlements, and the benefits of concentrating most development in locations where homes, jobs and facilities will be easily accessible to each other, and there is a choice of transport modes. The policy therefore dictates that most development will be located in the larger and more sustainable settlements within defined development boundaries (DDB’s). There is no dispute between the main parties that the site lies in the open countryside outside of any defined DDB.

[name], LP Policy SUS2 strictly controls development to specified categories. This includes new tourism development. Related to this, LP Policy ECON6 provides support for new built tourist accommodation subject to being within an established settlement of more than 200 people, through the re-use of an existing building, and through the replacement, intensification of existing premises. The proposal is for a new build and is not currently in tourism use. As such, it does not gain support from the last two criteria.

[name] acknowledge that Osmington has a population of more than 200 people and benefits from facilities including a public house and farm shop/tea room, village hall and church, the appeal site is considerably detached from the settlement and facilities, within the open countryside and separated from the settlement by an expanse of open countryside. As such, the appeal site is not within or immediately adjoining the settlement.

Furthermore, access by foot or bicycle is restricted by nature of the narrow unlit access, that itself is off an unlit lane with no lighting and pavements, or via public footpaths that are unlit and narrow. As such, and even if visitors were collected from nearby train stations or arrived by coach, when combined with the distance to services and facilities in Osmington and the associated bay, the routes would be unattractive to walkers and cyclists, particularly in the winter, at night or in poor weather, with or without torches. Access to a range of services and facilities, including those further along the A353 would therefore be reliant upon the use of a motor vehicle despite the presence of public transport routes along the A353, a footpath to its northern side, availability of delivery services and location nearby of PGL and campsites. In light of this, the proposal does not gain support from LP Policy ECON6.

However, I also acknowledge that the site benefits from planning permission1 to erect a replacement stable building of a similar size and appearance to the current proposal. As agreed by the main parties, this forms a fall-back position in relation to the existing building being capable of being replaced and that once carried out, an application could be submitted to convert the stables to holiday accommodation.

In relation to this, LP Policy SUS3 addresses the adaptation and re-use of buildings outside the DDB. In the case of built tourist accommodation, it states that they will be supported adjoining a settlement with a DDB or within or adjoining an established settlement of more than 200 population and in all cases where the building was in existence in 2011. While there is no dispute between the main parties that the original building pre-dates 2011, I have found above that the appeal site is not in or adjoining an established settlement.

The appellant has drawn my attention to LP Policy SUS4. This supports the replacement of buildings outside DDB’s where its continuing use would otherwise be consistent with other policies in the plan. I have found above that this would not be the case in this instance.

It follows that I conclude that the appeal site is not a suitable location for the proposed development having regard to development plan policies. As such, it is contrary to [name] SUS2, SUS3 and ECON6, the aims of which I have outlined above. Whilst the decision notice also cites LP Policy INT1, this simply reiterates the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out within the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), which I will consider later in my

The appeal site lies within the DNL. Paragraph 189 of the Framework requires me to give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes while Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 require relevant authorities to seek to further the statutory purposes of National Landscapes.

LP Policy ENV1 seeks to protect the area’s exceptional landscapes and seascapes taking into account the objectives of the AONB Management Plan. It further states that development which would harm the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the DNL, including their characteristic landscape quality and diversity, uninterrupted panoramic views, individual landmarks, and sense of tranquillity and remoteness, will not be permitted. It also states that development should be located and designed so that it does not detract from, and where reasonable, enhances the local landscape character with opportunities taken to secure visual enhancements of existing sites of a poor quality.

LP Policy ENV10 states that all proposals should contribute positively to the maintenance, enhancement of local identity and distinctiveness and informed by the character of the site and surroundings.

The appeal site comprises an ‘L’ shaped stable block and two detached stores that are visually isolated as they are surrounded by fields and the access track serving the appeal site. The stable block is not in a poor state of repair having a neutral visual impact, unlike the two stores. Due to this, the two stores detract visually from the surrounding area, and their removal would be positive.

The proposal would replace the existing buildings with a unit of holiday accommodation on the same footings as the stable, but with a slightly enlarged footprint. The design of the replacement building is simple and of a scale comparable to the existing stable building with materials sympathetic to those existing for the stable with surrounding vegetation partially screening the site. As such, the new building structure would result in a slight enhancement to the landscape and scenic beauty of the immediate area.

However, by reason of the introduction of holiday accommodation, the use of the site would become intensified and more noticeable at night from more distant views. This would be by virtue of additional lighting, activity, and comings and goings that would undermine the remoteness and tranquillity of the DNL. I see no reason why holiday accommodation would not be supported by the provision of sheds and/or play equipment to enhance its usability and attractiveness that would not be viewed against the backdrop of the building. I do however acknowledge that chair/tables and barbecue could be stored when not in use and generally viewed against the backdrop of the building.

I also acknowledge that the existing site generates some activity, comings and goings with some limited lighting to the buildings, and that other rural business users of the access generate vehicular movements and activity. However, with the holiday accommodation likely to be more popular in the summer months, given reliance on the use of the car overall and in the absence of substantive evidence to the contrary, I find that there would be an intensification in the use of the appeal site. Although landscaping could screen some activity, and the site would not be highly visible from the closest footpath, lighting and activity would nonetheless be more noticeable and any new landscaping would take time to establish. While lighting levels could be controlled by a condition, this could not reasonably prevent the use of lighting, and it would not be reasonable to condition the use of curtains or blinds at all times of darkness. By reason of this, the proposal would not conserve or enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the DNL or further its statutory purposes.

As a result, the slight enhancement from the visual effect of the new building would be outweighed by the visual effect from activities associated with the holiday use in this location where dwellings are limited and the character is defined by small scale rural buildings within generally undeveloped agricultural land. This would be the case despite the presence of nearby tourist development including those at [address] and PGL.

It follows from the above that I find that the proposal would not conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Dorset National Landscape. As such, it is contrary to [name] ENV1 and ENV10, the aims of which I have outlined above. Furthermore, as the proposal does not seek to re-use the existing building and would harm the immediate setting, it would be contrary to Paragraph 84 c) and e) of the Framework and the provisions of Sections 12 and 15 that seek to achieve well-designed places and conserve and enhance the natural environment.

My attention has been drawn to other decisions by [planning inspector] in Hermitage2 and Osmington village3 where holiday accommodation was supported. In relation to the Hermitage scheme, this benefitted from a fall back granted at appeal and differs from the current proposal as it relates to the change of use of an agricultural building including employment purposes. Furthermore, it is close to other buildings and not within the DNL. With regard to the Osmington decision, and although I have limited details, I have been advised that this is closer to the village centre and can be seen as part of a linear developed form. As such, I cannot be sure that these developments are directly comparable with the appeal scheme. Furthermore, I am required to consider the appeal proposal on its merits.

I have had regard to Paragraph 88 of the Framework that supports the enabling of sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside. However, I have found above that the site is not suitably located and would not respect the character of the countryside in this location.

I have also had regard to Paragraph 89 of the Framework that recognises that sites to meet local needs may be found beyond existing settlements in locations not well served by public transport and that the use of sites physically well related to settlements should be encouraged. Nonetheless, I have not been provided with substantive evidence of a need for additional holiday accommodation in the area, and I have found above that the site is not well related to Osmington and its services and facilities.

The proposal would provide some economic benefits for the operator of the unit, local trades people, associated employment benefits to cleaners, caterers etc, and 2 P/FUL/2025/02907 3 WD/D/19002390 associated spend from occupiers. However, given the small scale of the proposal, the benefits would be limited.

Conversely, the development would be contrary to the local development strategy. I give this adverse impact weight as the policies are generally consistent with the Framework where it states that planning decisions should guide development towards sustainable locations. I have however reduced the weight I give to this as the strategy is not designed to accommodate currently identified levels of local housing need in Dorset. Notwithstanding, I have also found that the proposals would not conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the DNL. I give this adverse impact great weight, and the relevant policies are generally consistent with the Framework where it seeks to safeguard the natural environment. As such overall, the adverse impacts significantly outweigh the benefits contrary to LP Policy INT1. Therefore, the proposed development would be contrary to the development plan as a whole and I give great weight to the conflict with these policies.

There is no dispute between the main parties that the Council can no longer demonstrate a 5-year supply of deliverable housing sites. However, I have found above that it would cause harm to a National Landscape. This is contrary to the provisions of Chapter 15 of the Framework. Given footnote 7 to Paragraph 11 d) i. of the Framework, and the harm I have identified to assets of particular importance in the form of a National Landscape, this provides a strong reason for refusing the development and there is no need for me to carry out the assessment in Paragraph

d) ii. of the Framework.

Nonetheless, and even if Paragraph 11 d ii. of the Framework applies, given the limited benefits due to the small scale of the proposal and the need to give great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes, the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole.

I note that the appeal site lies within the catchment area for the Dorset Heathlands Special Area of Conservation, Special Protection Area and Ramsar. However, as I am dismissing the appeal for other reasons, I do not need to consider the related duties under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 further.

Overall, for the reasons given above, the proposal conflicts with the development plan taken as a whole. There are no other considerations, including the Framework, that indicate that a decision should be made other than in accordance with the development plan. I therefore conclude the appeal should be dismissed.