Dormer bungalow alterations at Moone House, Harman's Cross, Swanage

What was proposed

The application sought changes to approved plans, including revised windows, a higher dormer parapet and internal layout alterations.

“Application Number: P/VOC/2025/05153 Webpage: Planning application: P/VOC/2025/05153 - dorsetforyou.com Site address: Moone House, Valley Road, Harmans Cross, Swanage, BH19 3DZ Proposal: Single storey side extension, extend existing room in roof space, alter existing dormers (with variation of condition 1 of planning permission P/HOU/2023/02368 to agree revised fenestration, an increase in height of the parapet to the larger flat roof dormer and alterations to internal…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The detached dormer bungalow sits in a sloping plot within Harmans Cross, near neighbouring homes, protected trees and the Dorset National Landscape.

“Description of site 4.1 Moone House is a detached dormer bungalow located approx. 65m to the south of Valley Road, Harmans Cross. It is accessed via its own private driveway which slopes downhill from the shared access with properties to the north. The bungalow is positioned in the northeastern corner of its plot with a length garden on the slope to the south.”

Officer report

The recommended approach

Officers recommended permission because the harm to local character, the landscape and neighbouring amenity was considered limited, subject to conditions.

“As such, the extensions and alterations are considered to conserve the natural beauty of the landscape area and further the purposes of the landscape designation in accordance with Policy E1: Landscape of the Purbeck Local Plan 2024. Impact on neighbouring amenity 14.14 As previously assessed, the application site is located on the settlement edge and is relatively well screened from neighbouring dwellings by existing trees and landscaping.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A neighbouring resident opposed the application, the applicant explained the structural reasons for the increased height, and a ward councillor’s statement supported a site visit.

The committee debate

Some members considered the works too large and insufficiently subservient, while others saw the changes as limited with little wider visual impact.

“Members had the opportunity to debate the merits of the application, during which several members stated that they disagreed with the officer’s conclusion regarding the harm to the character of the area and that on balance, due to the scale of the carried out works and the fact that it was not subservient to the ridge height of the dwelling it was unacceptable.”

“Other members expressed their view that the changes from the original approved plans were fairly minimal and they did not believe that the works as carried out caused more harm to the area, supported by the limited visual impact of the property from the wider area.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

A proposal for a site visit was not seconded, and members then voted to grant permission subject to the listed conditions.

“It was proposed by Cllr Brenton to defer the application to allow the committee to conduct a site visit, the proposal failed to be seconded and so the motion fell.”

Minutes