- Decision
- dismissed, 28 August 2026
- Decided by
- Planning Inspector: J J Evans
- Authority
- Dorset (South West)
- Appeal reference
- 6007314
- Application reference
- P/FUL/2022/03559
- Procedure
- written representations
- Development
- Removal of modern farm buildings; conversion of historic barns to 5 dwellings and erection of 2 dwellings, with landscaping and parking
- Homes
- 7
- Site context
- national landscape, open countryside, TPO, listed building setting
- Green Belt
- No
- Housing land supply
- 2.53 years
- Framework applied
- August 2026 NPPF
- Determinative policies
- N4(1), N3, Transitional(2)
- Development plan policies
- West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan 2015 ENV2, ENV10
- Main issues
- National Landscape and protected trees; heritage setting; habitat sites; housing supply
Summary
A scheme to convert a derelict historic farmstead beside a Grade II* farmhouse in the Dorset National Landscape into seven homes was dismissed. The harm to heritage setting was outweighed. But the development would damage the protected trees that frame the farmstead, and nutrient mitigation for Poole Harbour was not secured. A 2.53-year supply did not change that. The letter applies N4(1)'s "substantial weight" to natural beauty and the transitional "materially inconsistent" test.
Issues and findings
- Trees and the NL: FAIL. "The Framework requires substantial weight to be given to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of NLs. In this case the trees make an important contribution … but their presence has not informed the development of the site" (DL ¶17). Crown lifting of the sycamore row and works under a protected sycamore were unquantified. "It cannot be assumed that conditions would provide certainty that the trees would survive" (DL ¶15). Conclusion: "substantial harm to protected trees and the important contribution they make to the NL" (DL ¶19).
- Heritage: PASS. "The retention and restoration of the historic farm buildings would be a considerable public benefit to the setting of the farmhouse … These public benefits and the provision of an additional seven dwellings … would outweigh the harms arising to the farmhouse's setting" (DL ¶18).
- Habitat sites: FAIL. There was no package treatment plant on the drawings and no legal agreement for its maintenance. "The harms to the SPA and Ramsar weighs heavily against the scheme" (DL ¶21).
- Weight to local policy. "where policies or parts of them are materially inconsistent with the Framework, the Framework requires they should be given very limited weight". ENV10 and ENV2 are consistent, so "the conflict of the scheme with these development plan policies should be given significant weight" (DL ¶26).
Planning balance
A plan-led balance with the housing shortfall as a weighty material consideration. For: seven homes at 2.53 years (important), restoration of the historic buildings (important), and construction (modest). Against: substantial harm to TPO trees and the NL, and unmitigated habitat-site harm. "when read as a whole the Framework does not suggest this should happen at the expense of other considerations … these would be outweighed by the substantial harms" (DL ¶27). The letter does not address S5, because the parties agreed the principle (DL ¶10).
What made the difference
Tree impacts that had not been designed around, and a nutrient mitigation package that was not secured. An arboricultural layout that kept the granary and walls out of the root protection areas, plus a package treatment plant secured by agreement, would have left heritage-led housing benefits in a strong position.
Transferable points
- N4(1)'s substantial weight to natural beauty covers tree groups that define settlement and farmstead character in a National Landscape (DL ¶13, ¶17).
- Condition-based tree protection is not enough where extensive crown and root-area works are unquantified (DL ¶15-16).
- Local policies that mirror the Framework (tree retention, habitat protection) keep significant weight under the transitional "materially inconsistent" test (DL ¶26).
- A severe supply shortfall does not override substantial NL or habitat-site harm (DL ¶27).
Policy findings
Policy codes are those of the National Planning Policy Framework (August 2026) unless a development plan is named.
| Policy | Finding | Weight | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| N4(1) | fail | protected trees are an important contributor to this part of the Dorset NL; the scheme neither conserves nor enhances it (DL 12-13, 17, 19) | |
| N3 | fail | significant crown lifting of TPO sycamores and a relocated granary under a protected tree; conditions cannot give certainty the trees survive (DL 14-16, 19) | |
| HE6(4) | pass | erosion of the verdant setting of the Grade II* farmhouse outweighed by restoring the historic farm buildings and walls plus 7 homes (DL 18) | |
| N6 | fail | Poole Harbour SPA/Ramsar nutrient neutrality not secured (no package treatment plant or legal agreement); 'weighs heavily' (DL 20-21, 25) | |
| HO7 | benefit | significant | seven homes against a 2.53-year supply, an 'important benefit'; affordable housing UU defective (DL 24-25) |
| Transitional(2) | neutral | ENV2 and ENV10 consistent with the Framework, so their conflict carries significant weight (DL 26) |
Key facts
- Principle of residential development in the countryside not disputed by the parties (DL 10)
- TPO confirmed 10 Feb 2026 during the application (DL 5)
- Unilateral undertaking had different signatures and dates and did not bind successors (DL 25)
- Parties' comments sought on the 2026 Framework (DL 2)
Sources
This note is one of the decisions behind the NPPF 2026 Navigator, which shows how each Framework test has been applied across all the decisions in the database. Also available as Markdown.