Appeal 6001579

The appeal is allowed and the planning permission [name]/VOC/2025/00948 for change of use of agricultural land to caravan/camping site as an extension to existing facility. Construct reception building, kitchen/shower block, bin store and service roads (part retrospective). Resubmission following withdrawal of WD/D/16/000730 with variation to conditions 1, 3 and 6 of planning permission WD/D/17/002060 to seek approval for the retrospective regularisation of season mixed/hardstanding pitches located within the teardrop shaped area identified on approved plan 566/02 P1 as "Extension Camping Area" at [site address] , [site address] , Dorset [postcode] granted on 12 February 2018 by Dorset Council, is varied by deleting conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 and subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal seeks a variation of conditions to planning permission WD/D/17/002060 to change the pitch layout on the site. This includes increasing the number of pitches from 47 to 63 (comprising 10 fully serviced, 42 with hardstanding and 11 mixed pitches).

At the time of my site visit the development had been carried out and appeared to accord with the submitted plans. For the avoidance of doubt, I have determined the appeal based on those plans.

The appellant’s documentation refers in particular to development within the ‘teardrop shaped area’ but also comprises and considers changes outside of this area, particularly to areas adjoining this and to the western boundary. The Council has taken the same approach, and I shall do the same, with my decision being based on the submitted plans.

The appeal is accompanied by a [name] produced by Tumu Consulting Ltd dated 7 November 2025. This seeks to address the second reason for refusal. The Council has advised that it has reviewed this [name] and considers the conclusions acceptable in connection with addressing the second reason for refusal, subject to conditions that I will return to below. [name] have no reason to disagree, I do not need to deal with this as a Main Issue.

In light of the Preliminary Matters above, the main issue is whether the development would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the Dorset National Landscape (DNL).

The appeal site comprises a touring caravan and motorhome campsite with a number of hard standing pitches and associated facilities buildings. The site is bounded by a mature hedgerow to the south, and maturing hedgerows to the west and north. To the east of the site are agricultural barns. Beyond the site boundary to its west and north/north-west are two public rights of way1.

Beyond the northern site boundary is an open field containing an access road and pitches that were not in use at the time of my site visit. This area formed part of a previous planning application and was subject to a previous appeal decision2 (the previous appeal decision). That appeal was dismissed with the appellant now 1 W32/38 and W32/39 2 APP/D1265/W/24/3357243 advising that this area will now be put to orchard, wetlands and woodland as part of [name] unrelated to the current appeal development.

The site is laid out around tracks providing access from the main site entrance and is generally level. The pitches are divided by a limited number of trees and hedgerows with some native species. At the time of my site visit the hedges were mainly devoid of leaf and generally of a maximum height just in excess of the height of the caravans on the pitches. The development seeks to improve the quality of holiday offer at the site with landscaped pitches to improve the appearance of the accommodation and wider site.

The site sits within open countryside, broadly at the heart of the clay-rich [name], framed on all sides by the higher greensand ridges and plateaux of the Axe Valley Hills, the [name], and the [name]. The wider area is generally characterised by rural and open agricultural fields bounded by hedge and tree planting with views of the surrounding ridges and viewing positions including [address], [address] and [name].

The site lies within the [name]/[name] landscape character area/type, as described by the Councils Landscape Character Assessment (LCA) and Dorset Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty Management Plan 2019-2024 (the Management Plan). The LCA states that ‘The clay vale landscape type is represented by the intimate and rural Marchwood, Blackmore and [name]. They have predominately small pastoral fields of trimmed hedgerows and hedgerow oaks, with patterns of medieval settlement and clearance with a long tradition in dairy farming. Scattered farmsteads underpin the largely undeveloped and tranquil character.’ This is reflected by similar wording in the Management Plan.

Objectives C1 and C2 of the Management Plan seek to protect the special qualities and natural beauty of the local landscape character and DNL. Objective C4 of the Management Plan seeks to protect the DNL from an overprovision of visitor accommodation including camping, caravaning and glamping sites particularly where existing development weakens the character and appearance of the countryside. This is further reflected in the LCA where one of the guidelines for the area is to limit the impact of camping and caravaning sites, and to restrict the expansion of sites in areas where impacts are already significant, including cumulative effects.

The western part of the appeal site and associated caravans/motorhomes could be viewed through parts of the existing hedgerows from the two public rights of way to the west/north-west of the site in close proximity at the time of my site visit. However, given that the additional pitches are viewed alongside a row of similar consented pitches, with the planting and hedging providing some screened views of the pitches, and given that the planting will mature further and provide greater screening from increased leaf cover at other times of the year, the additional pitches to the western part of the site do not cause any harm to the wider DNL when viewed from the public rights of way.

When viewing the site from the public rights of way further to the north/north-west, the boundary planting again provides some screening of the consented and proposed caravans and pitches. This is the case despite a gap in the northern strip of boundary planting created by access to the adjacent field and the disagreement between the main parties regarding compliance with the originally approved landscaping scheme. As with the views from the west, at the time of my site visit the planting was virtually bare leaf. However, again given that the consented pitches are visible in these views, given that the planting will mature further over time, and given greater screening from increased leaf cover at other times of the year, the additional pitches to the northern boundary do not cause any harm to the wider DNL when viewed from the public rights of way.

For the same reasons, given that the additional pitches within the ‘teardrop’ area are generally screened from the public rights of way by planting, are viewed in association with consented pitches, and benefit from their own planting, despite some glimpsed views, the additional pitches in this area similarly do not cause any harm to the wider DNL when viewed from the public rights of way.

Due to the flat topography of the immediate area, with hedgerow and tree planting to field boundaries, there are no intermediate range views of the site beyond the public rights of way. However, the main parties have drawn my attention to four key long-range views of the site from public viewpoints at [address]/[address]/W18/60/Bridleway W18/64, [address], [name] and [name]/Car Park.

From each of these viewpoints, and where not screened by vegetation, the appeal site forms a very small part of a very wide panoramic landscape. From these viewpoints and given that the appeal site sits within a fairly flat landform comprising hedgerows and trees surrounded by rising hills, the wide-open expanse of the vale, backdrop of the hills and skyline dominate. When viewed within the wider views, the appeal site does not significantly dominate or draw the eye, with the landscaping providing some screening despite the generally white nature of caravans/motorhomes. Moreover, from [address] and [name]/Car Park in particular, there are views of large farm buildings that are equally or more prominent.

When concentrating in on the appeal site from these viewpoints, the site becomes more noticeable due to the generally white finish of the caravans/campervans. However, the additional pitches are small in scale and viewed alongside and within the consented pitches. Nearby and on-site landscaping also helps to reduce their prominence. [name] acknowledge that there may be some additional reflection from the white finish of caravans/motorhomes on sunny days, and additional site lighting, given the existing number of consented pitches and establishing planting to the pitches, I do not find that the number or position of additional pitches will harmfully add to this. As such, the additional pitches result in no harm to the wider DNL and would be barely perceptible from these viewpoints when viewed in association with the consented caravans/campervans and pitches.

I acknowledge that the impact was greater when the land to the north of the site was in use as additional pitches, as described in the previous appeal decision and shown in photographs from 2024 provided by the Council. However, these pitches do not form part of the appeal before me and at the time of my site visit were not in use.

I further acknowledge that the previous appeal decision included the additional pitches forming part of the current appeal and was partly dismissed on the basis of a harmful effect on the DNL. Nonetheless, the development before me differs from the previous appeal proposal that was considered as a whole and included a considerable expansion of the site to the north into an open field that the Inspector references as harmful for a number of reasons. As such, there are significant differences between the previous appeal proposal and the current development, and I am required to consider the current appeal on its merits.

I am satisfied that the planting will establish further over time, would provide suitable screening and planting to the proposed additional units to ensure a semi-verdant setting within the site that does not represent a cramped over-developed layout. This is the case despite acknowledgement of the generally smaller nature of the pitches and narrow planting strips between them as they still serve a useful purpose and provide a semi-verdant setting to the site.

I have had regard to the Management Plan and LCA seeking to prevent an overprovision of visitor accommodation, and to restrict the expansion of already harmful sites. However, I have not been provided with substantive evidence demonstrating an overprovision of visitor accommodation in the immediate area and have found above that the development does not weaken the character and appearance of the countryside or cause significant or cumulative effects due to its location, layout and screening. [name] acknowledge that the site layout differs from the wider vale in terms of being denser with smaller less organic planting strips, this is the case with the original camping/caravan site layout and nature of the development, and I do not find that the development would harmfully add to this.

In light of the above, I conclude that the changes to the landscape as part of the development would be neutral. In addition, I find that any changes to the visual impact from the development are also neutral. As a result, I am satisfied that the development will leave the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the DNL unharmed with the duty to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the DNL and duty to seek to further the statutory purposes of the DNL discharged.

I therefore conclude that the development would conserve and enhance the landscape and scenic beauty of the DNL. As such, it complies with Policies ECON7, ENV1 and ENV10 of the [name], Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015, Policy UMV4 of the Upper Marshwood Vale Neighbourhood Plan and Policies C1, C2 and C4 of the Management Plan. Amongst other things, these support proposals that improve the quality and appearance of the accommodation, do not have a significant harmful adverse impact, support development that conserves and enhances the character, special qualities or natural beauty of the local landscape character and DNL, be informed by the character of the site and its surroundings, and protect the DNL from an overprovision of visitor accommodation where development weakens the character and appearance of the area. For the same reasons, the development complies with the provisions of paragraphs 187 and 189 of the National Planning Policy Framework with regard to protecting and enhancing valued landscapes and giving great weight to conserving and enhancing landscape and scenic beauty in National Landscapes.

I have had regard to the comments from Char Valley Parish Council with regard to an appeal decision at [name] Farm3 and concerns regarding additional harm to the highway network from the development. However, I do not have the full 3 APP/D12654/W/24/3352961 details of this proposal to be able to be sure that it is directly comparable, and I am required to consider the current appeal on its merits. Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Dorset Council do not raise any highway safety concerns regarding the current development and given its relatively small scale, I have no reason to disagree.

While the development may take trade away from other smaller sites, it would nonetheless provide benefits in the form of support for a wide range of local businesses and community facilities that weigh in favour of the development.

I have had regard to the comments from interested parties in relation to concerns regarding historic and future compliance with planning conditions. However, this is not a matter before me for consideration. Furthermore, Dorset Council have planning enforcement powers to investigate and act against any non-compliance with conditions or any future unauthorised development.

I have had regard to paragraph 57 of the Framework and the guidance in relation to conditions in the Planning Practice Guidance and impose the Council's 7 suggested conditions with some minor variation to the wording in the interests of clarity and enforceability.

In addition to the standard plans condition updated to reflect the development, original condition No.2 has been amended and is necessary to ensure that the site is used for holiday purposes only in light of its location. The wording of this condition has been amended slightly from the original wording to add the need to keep a record of owners/occupiers to ensure the condition can be enforced.

Original condition No’s 3 and 4 have been amended to reflect the development and submitted plans and to ensure that the landscaping scheme shown on the plans is implemented in full. I have amended the wording of condition No.4 to ensure provision of the planting as shown on the proposed plans within 6 months as the development is retrospective, to cover the next planting season and to ensure its retention. These conditions are necessary in order to protect the character and appearance of the area.

Original condition No.5 is amended to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the previous Bio-diversity plan in the interests of nature conservation. Original condition No.6 is amended to reflect the submitted surface water drainage note to ensure satisfactory surface water drainage.

Finally, the Council have suggested a new [name].7 to ensure that details of flood risk mitigation for pitches within the area at risk of flooding are submitted to and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. This is necessary in the interests of protecting users from the risk of flooding, but I have amended the wording in the interests of reasonableness, clarity and enforceability. This condition is imposed to ensure that flood mitigation measures for some of the pitches are submitted, approved and implemented so as to make that part of the development acceptable in planning terms. There is a strict timetable for compliance because permission is being granted retrospectively, and it is not possible to use a negatively worded condition to secure the approval and implementation of the mitigation details before the development takes place. The condition will ensure that this part of the development can be enforced against if the requirements are not met.

For the reasons given above I conclude that the appeal should succeed. I will vary the planning permission by deleting the original conditions and substituting them with new conditions to reflect the development and associated plans, and subject to a further condition.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved plans: Site location plan 16/127/01 [name] 16/127/02 Rev H4 [name] 566/01 P7 [name] 566/02 P5 [name] & [name] - [name] 16/127/04 [name] - Ancillary & Utilities Building - [name] 16/127/05 [name] Shower & Toilets - [name] 16/127/06 [name] plans and Elevations - Toilet/Shower/[name] - [name] 16/127/07 [name].

The touring caravans, camper vans and tent camping pitches hereby approved shall be occupied for holiday purposes only; shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence; and the owners/operators must maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of the pitches and of their main home addresses, and must make this information available at all reasonable hours at the request of a duly authorised officer of the Local Planning Authority.

This permission is for a maximum of 63 holiday pitches within the red line of the application site laid out as shown on the approved Site Layout Plan 16/127/02 Rev H4 and shall be retained as such.

Within 6 months of the date of this permission all soft landscape works shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings: [name] 566/01 P7 [name] 566/02 P5 Any trees or plants that within a period of five years after planting are removed, die, or become, in the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, seriously damaged or defective shall be replaced as soon as it is reasonably practical with others of species, size and number as originally approved unless otherwise agreed. Thereafter, the planting shall be retained in accordance with the approved drawings.

The implementation of the submitted and approved Bio-diversity Plan on application WD/D/17/002060 shall be permanently retained.

The surface water drainage features as referenced in the [name] 20013-TUM-TN-XXX-0001 rev B dated 7/11/25 including [name] and the drainage layout as shown on Site Layout 16/127/02 Rev H4 shall be provided (to include at least 180m3 of surface water attenuation storage within the swale) within 2 months of the date of this permission and retained for the duration of the use hereby approved.

Unless within 2 months of the date of this decision a scheme of flood risk mitigation for those pitches lying within the EA modelled surface water risk areas, is submitted in writing to the local planning authority for approval, and unless the approved scheme is implemented within 2 months of the local planning authority’s approval, the use of those pitches shall cease. If no scheme in accordance with this condition is approved within 3 months of the date of this decision, the use of those pitches shall cease. Upon implementation of the approved flood risk mitigation specified in this condition, the mitigation shall thereafter be provided and maintained. In the event of a legal challenge to this decision, or to a decision made pursuant to the procedure set out in this condition, the operation of the time limits specified in this condition will be suspended until that legal challenge has been finally determined. END OF CONDITIONS