®Planning appeal decision
Agricultural Building At Paddock Farm, Bowridge Hill, Gillingham, Dorset, SP8 5QS
Planning appeal 3344025 at Agricultural Building At Paddock Farm, Bowridge Hill, Gillingham, Dorset, SP8 5QS (Dorset) was dismissed on 24 October 2024 by Inspector Kent R, by written representations. The main issue, as the Inspector framed it: whether the site is a suitable location for two dwellings taking into account local and national policy for the re-use of existing buildings, with particular regard to the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape.
Conversion of redundant rural buildings to two dwellings
- Authority
- Dorset
- Appeal type
- minor · Planning Appeal
- Procedure
- Written Representations
- Development
- residential · Change of use
- Inspector
- Kent R
- Postcode
- SP8 5QS
Main issues, as the Inspector framed them
- whether the site is a suitable location for two dwellings taking into account local and national policy for the re-use of existing buildings, with particular regard to the effect of the proposals on the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape
What decided it
The proposals would not enhance the immediate setting of the buildings as required by Policy 29 criterion (g) and the Framework, but would instead cause substantial harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape through the introduction of residential paraphernalia and the substantial reconstruction of the buildings.
The modest benefits of the development, including the provision of two dwellings, improved energy performance, 40% biodiversity net gain, and reinstatement of a public footpath, were substantially outweighed by the substantial harm to the character and appearance of the site and surrounding landscape and the conflict with the development plan as a whole.
What the Inspector cited
- Development plan policies
- Policy 1Policy 2Policy 4Policy 20Policy 24Policy 29Policy 6Policy 3Policy 15Policy 22
- National Planning Policy Framework
- Paragraph 84Paragraph 225Paragraph 11
- Judgments
- Hibbitt and another v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (1) and Rushcliffe Borough Council (2) [2016] EWHC 2853 (Admin)
How the Inspector dealt with each one is set out in the app, in order: the development plan, national policy, housing land supply, other considerations and the planning balance, beside the letter.
See how each was appliedThe decision letter
Town Planner Pro holds this letter. The Appeals plan opens it and every other letter we hold, all of them searchable, with the main issues and what decided each case picked out. We do not show letters on the free site because they carry people’s names and addresses.
With an account
What an account adds to this decision
More decisions in Dorset
The authority’s record since 2016 · every decision in 2024
- Dismissed29 October 20266010776The Bothey, Clayford, Wimborne, BH21 7BJ
- Dismissed23 October 2026601467352 St Mary Street, Weymouth, DT4 8BJ
- Dismissed22 October 20266012104Papushka Fields, Dorchester Rd,, Lytchett Minster, BH16 6FE
- Dismissed22 October 20266011513Field View Barn, Fishey Lane, West Orchard, SP7 0LQ
- Allowed21 October 20266010895Land off Dukes Close, Martinstown, DT2 9TU
The main issues, what decided it, the planning balance and the policies and judgments listed as cited are read from the published letter by Town Planner Pro and are our summary, not the Inspector’s words; the letter itself is the record. Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0. Research, not advice.