Content

To take no further action.

This decision is
taken under delegated powers set out in Paragraph 145 of the Officer Scheme of
Delegation in the Council’s constitution, which grants delegated authority to undertake all action in order to regulate any actual, perceived or
potential breach of any of the Town and Country Planning Legislation
including:

 

To determine whether or not to take and/or to cease action whether
because in his/her opinion the breach is trivial, there is insufficient
demonstrable harm and/or, it is not expedient to take / continue to take action

 

This authority has
been delegated to me through the Local Scheme of Nomination for the Executive
Director for Place.

 

Reasons for the decision

The three complaints have been addressed as a whole as the land
concerned is the same, as is the contravener and the main complainant. All associated
documents are available on the Dorset Council web pages. A full report with
associated appendices is recorded on the enforcement record. However, this
would be subject to GDPA restrictions and so cannot be published.

 

The land was originally a small property with a large greenhouse used to
grow plants, presumably to support the adjacent Island Gardens Nursery.
Permission WP/14/00189/FUL gave permission for a new dwelling to be built in
the land. This development did not take place.

 

In 2015 the land was acquired by the current owner. After the submission
of a pre-app, a subsequent application was submitted and permission was given
to build a dwelling with an associated stable. WP/16/00217/FUL.

 

Conditions required commencement of the development within 3 years from
November 1st 2016 and adherence to approved plans. These showed the
removal of the existing stables and a greenhouse.

 

In 2017 a successful Variation of Condition, WP/17/00311/VOC,
effectively severed the link between the house and the stables.

 

In January 2018 the land was severed, with the central section where the
dwelling was to be built being acquired by the complainant. Planning permission
WP/18/00643/FUL was granted in December 2018 on that central portion of land
for a new dwelling.

 

A number of applications were made regarding the remaining land where
the stables were to be built, but these were all refused. The stables were
eventually constructed and subject to a complaint in July 2021 regarding the
construction materials, but this was resolved.

 

In October 2022 a complaint was made regarding the re-cladding of the
greenhouse that abuts the house to the north. This construction remained on the
original footprint of the northern most part of the original greenhouse, and
the recladding with green metal was considered de minimus.

 

The original owner acquired the Island Nursery, a small commercial
enterprise to the south of the whole plot, as well as a number of adjacent
fields. The land in ownership now being an agricultural holding, is about 35
acres. The provision of an outbuilding on the Island Gardens Nursery site is of
such a size as to be considered as ancillary to the agricultural use of the
land. This was subsequently used as a café during 2023 and considered by the
owner’s agent as being incidental to the nursery, but shut down by the owner
after correspondence suggested that such use would not be considered as
ancillary and a separate application should be made if such use was to
re-commence.

The owner has been in correspondence with this officer regarding these
matters over a number of months, and he has apparently taken advice regarding
these items as well as other matters which, at this time, appear to have been
resolved. It has been suggested that both the stable block now in situ as well
as the newly clad greenhouse would require retrospective planning applications
made to regularise their development. No applications have been made in these
matters

A copy of this report was sent to DC Legal department as well as the
planning officer, who was dealing with a number of other applications regarding
the land to the north of the dwelling which is occupied by the stables and
re-clad greenhouse. The response received suggested that in principle the
developments would be acceptable in planning terms, and the only concern was
that of flood risk, so the Environment Agency should be consulted.

 

The Environment Agency were contacted and the response was that although
the structures were within Flood Zone 2, they were ‘not so much of a concern’.
A further application had subsequently been approved, (P/FUL/2024/01613) which
allowed the provision of a car park on the land, with conditions including the
provision of bridges across the river. These bridges, allowing access to the
Island Gardens Nursery, were subject to an application. (P/PAP2/2024/01869) and
prior approval was granted.

 

Subsequent correspondence with Senior Enforcement Officer and Legal
advisor agreed that due to subsequent approvals for developments upon the land,
and without any indication that any substantial planning harm was being caused
by the breaches of planning control, it would not be expedient to take
enforcement action.

 

Alternative options considered

The alternative
option would be to pursue formal enforcement action. However, due to this
matter being of low planning harm and likelihood of a planning application
being approved, it is not expedient to pursue formal action. This is in line
with Government guidance which suggests that Local Planning Authorities should
act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.