I COULD not believe my eyes when I drove along Sutton Road down the hill into Sutton Poyntz recently. This is the spot where extensive work has just taken place, with the road being dug up and pipes laid to channel away the water from the stream that rises just below the road surface.
The newly laid tarmac had bubbled up to a considerable height and gallons of water were running away down the hill exactly as happened before all the work was carried out. This was very disappointing, for the road works caused considerable disruption to everyone in the village over quite a period, and all, it seemed, to no avail.
However, when I drove down again only a couple of days later, the large bump in the road had been smoothed out, new tarmac had been laid and there was no sign of any water. Let's hope that this is the end of this long running saga - and the end of the long running water - but I am afraid that we will have to reserve judgement on the success of the works until much later.
MR PETER Broach, who acquired Eweleaze Farm back in 2000, submitted a planning application in March 2007 to construct an agricultural worker's dwelling adjacent to the restored barn near the centre of the 50 hectare farm. An entertainment licence was recently granted for this area, the fields around which become a large camp site in the summer. The farm is also home to a number of cattle, sheep and free range hens. The planning application was turned down by W&PBC and an appeal was lodged.
The Planning Inspector considered three questions in arriving at his recently published appeal decision; was there a functional need for a new dwelling, was the farming enterprise sufficiently viable to support a new dwelling and what effect the new dwelling would have on the local landscape.
The Inspector felt that the cattle and sheep did not, and were not likely to in the future, justify the need for a permanent presence on site, especially as grazing takes place on sites other than the farm and Mr Broach owns a cottage in Osmington which could act as a base. The same argument regarding a permanent presence applied to the existing number of hens, but should the poultry operation become larger and better established then there may be a need for a dwelling, but this was not the case presently.
Despite the fact that the planned size of the dwelling had been reduced, the Inspector also concluded that the farming enterprise would not support a permanent agricultural dwelling.
The proposed plan to site the building, of traditional material, as part of an existing barn complex in a natural bowl between the hills and the sea where a farmstead might well have existed previously would not, in his opinion, harm the natural beauty of the area. In his final summing up the inspector dismissed the appeal and refused planning permission.
7:11pm Sunday 4th May 2008
Print 
Email this
What are these links for?
If you liked this article and would like to share it with others on the web who might be searching for good content we've made it easy for you to do it.
At the bottom of all articles, you'll see links to six sites. These sites - commonly called 'social bookmark' or 'social news' sites - have large communities of web users who share and rate interesting, useful and fun things on the web.
Clicking the links will automatically add the address of the story you are reading to one of these sites, letting you share it with others. Each site will ask you to register to share stories. Registration is free and once a member, you can store, recommend and search for stories that interest you.
More on Digg
More on del.icio.us
More on Furl
More on reddit
More on NowPublic/
More on Yahoo!
