34 storage containers at 5A Surrey Close, Chickerell

What was proposed

The application sought 34 storage containers with fencing, an electric gate, car park changes and a smaller cycle store.

“The northern half would retain 21 of the existing 60 parking spaces, i.e. leading to a loss of 39 spaces. An existing cycle store would be reduced in size, and a new palisade (or similar) fencing would be installed along the western edge of the site, around the entrance. A sliding electric gate is proposed for security. These means of enclosure would be approximately 2m high. The application form states that the development would not provide any new jobs. 6.”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The 0.16-hectare site is an existing industrial estate car park beside industrial premises, the Dorset Echo building and a golf course.

“Description of site 4.1 The 0.16ha site is located in the Granby Industrial Estate, which is safeguarded in the local plan as a Key Employment Site. It comprises an area of parking currently used by staff and visitors to the surrounding industrial units. To the north and south are industrial premises; to the west is the Dorset Echo building; to the east is a golf course. Levels slope gently downwards to the north.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the proposal did not provide enough information to assess transport safety or wildlife impacts.

“No weight can be given to job provision, as the applicant has stated that no jobs would be created. The failure to understand or demonstrate highway safety weighs heavily against the proposal. Whilst paragraph 87 of the NPPF is supportive of storage and distribution uses, these need to be in ‘suitably accessible locations,’ which remains unclear.”

“The applicant has failed to supply sufficient information to allow for an accurate assessment of the transport implications of the proposed development. Adverse impacts on the local highway network and safety cannot therefore be ruled out or mitigated for, and the proposal is in conflict with Policy COM7 of the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan (2015) and paragraphs 116 and 117 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2025). 2.”

Officer report

Consultees’ responses

Highways deferred its response over missing transport information, while Environmental Protection and Economic Development raised no objection and the Natural Environment Team sought habitat details.

“Dorset Council – Natural Environment Team: ‘from the information provided I am not clear on the amount of vegetation removal required to facilitate the development, I would request that the applicant provide further information on the areas of habitat to be removed or cut back to ensure they meet the BNG exemption criteria and for me to provide comment on potential for impacts to protected species.’ Cllr Clifford: no response received. Cllr Taylor: no response received.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent supported the scheme, citing likely low HGV use, possible turning land and routine vegetation maintenance.

Members’ concerns

One member supported the scheme, but other members remained concerned about the swept path information and loss of parking.

“Having had the chance to debate the merits of the application, one member had expressed support for the scheme and noted the benefits of rejuvenating the area and also viewed any potential highways issues as minimal. However, other members expressed concerns about the lack of information for the swept path analysis and loss of parking.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

A deferral proposal was withdrawn after advice about possible non-determination and council costs, followed by a proposal to refuse.

“The Development Management Area Manager advised members that the Council could be at risk of non-determination if a decision wasn’t made and that there could be costs to the Council involved with that.”

“The proposal was withdrawn by Cllr Northam in light of the advice given by officers.”

Minutes

The final decision

The application was refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to the minutes.

“It was proposed by Cllr Eysenck and seconded by Cllr Kimber, that the application refused.”

“Decision: That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the appendix to these minutes.”

Minutes