Five months later, presumably after pressure had been applied by the district council, we now see a retrospective planning application being made by Lyme Regis Golf Club for "Construct hardstanding and erect fence panels for driving range". Planning application number is 1/D/07/001605 and the site is refered to as: Land Adjoining Lyme Regis Golf Club, Timber Hill, Lyme Regis, DT7 3HQ. Details can be viewed on the planning website.

Of course the impact of this construction is on a different scale to the previous applications for covered driving range buildings, but you may wish to object to it, make comments or recommendations in which case you have until 28th September to do so.

This removal was unannounced and later unreported in the press. The question that must be asked is where is the replacement?
Is it in your backyard?

The planning position in relation to this building was discussed back in 2004 shortly after the materials for the building were literally stumbled upon. Planning officers are at liberty to comment and make recommendations on such permitted development but the public are not invited to comment on or even made aware of such proposals until it is too late.

The case officer regarded the positioning, appearance and materials for the proposal to be acceptable. We shall see as the picture unfolds but he also mentioned a landscaped bank on the west side of the building. The bank is already in place, see above picture, and is obviously quite inadequate considering the height of the building. Does this indicate that the other provisions regarding appearance will also prove lacking?

If we are extremely annoyed at this inappropriate and probably unnecessary building what must the golf club, football club and the town council's feelings be after having their, probably in their eyes less intrusive, proposals rejected?
Will we yet again see another round of applications following this development?

There's not much else to be said about the matter only that with this decision and inspector Jill Kingaby's report of 2006, regarding built facilities on Strawberry Field, can there be any interested parties who have yet to get the message?

But is planning permission required for this construction?
Under planning law permitted development allows the construction of fences under 2 metres high. But when does a configuration of fences become a building?

No doubt if this is unchallenged and/or remains it will only be a matter of time before a roof will be put on, especially if the club's appeal fails.

Why this timing?
Perhaps they have lost hope of the appeal being upheld. Or could it be to show the appeal inspector that this area is already partly developed, the recent installation of the Orange mast adding to this impression, and that a "little" more development would not matter too much?

The reason that an Orange mast was looking for a home was because the 10-year planning permission for the one on the Charmouth Road carpark had expired. Orange had applied to extend the permission but the application was refused by WDDC. The council's decision was then upheld at appeal.

Let's hope that this is indeed a temporary measure and that the hospitality of the golf club will be extended to inviting Orange to share the Crown Castle mast on their carpark. Although it should be remembered that the temporary "emergency" TETRA mast was in place for 16 months!

You might find something there to inspire you if or when you write to the inspectorate.

The "Guide to taking part in planning appeals" mentioned in the letter can be read online by clicking here.

Both the Council's decision notice and the officer's report for this application can be accessed by going to the planning website enter the applicatioin number 1/W/06/000161, click search and then click on the Decision or Report tab. There you may find food for thought regarding making additional comments to the Inspectorate.

I am making enquires to see if the appellant's grounds of appeal can be accessed on the net.

In spite of a number of attempts, via the WDDC legal advisors, to persuade Cllrs Lovell and Meech not to sit on the Development Control West Committee as Chairman and Vice Chairman respectively when it came to declarations of interest they only declared personal interests. Which meant that they could remain in place, fully take part in the discussion and vote on the application. You can decide for yourself why they made this decision. This meant that at least five of the seven other committee members would have to vote for refusal to enable the application to be rejected, for although Cllr. Meech had informed the legal adviser that "he does not consider he has an interest, nor predetermined this matter" we all know how he and Cllr. Lovell would vote.

"As you know it is for members to decide if they have an interest, although we are available to provide advice" Peter Woodcock solicitor for WDDC.

Gerald Hughes as the case officer introduced the application and put forward the reasons why he had recommended its refusal. Members of the public, who had made representation on the application were then each given three minutes in which to speak. We only had two speakers but ones of quality David Sole and Stephen Wilkins. Whilst the golf club had about six who concentrated mainly on golf club income and how money from the driving range would secure the club's future. The begging bowl was almost pushed around. They put their apparently dreaded financial plight down to a 10% loss of membership and thought that the driving range would bring them back. No mention was made of the £6000 that they will no longer have from the TETRA mast, it having been removed from the practice field. mm02 wanted to share the existing mast on the club car park but the club would not have it.On being asked later by Cllr.Friar if these financial advantages were of any planning relevance Gerald Hughes said no.

Other speakers suggested that the driving range would be good for the towns tourist trade. Others that it was necessary for all their geriatric golfers who could be spared the need to retrieve their own balls. Then there was the link with schools and the young but Mr Hughes had effectively hit that one into the bunker in his report.

As ward representatives Cllrs.Meech and Lovell then put forward the merits of the driving range and the recommendation of approval that the town council had come to. This was not the best performance that Cllr. Meech had made in his career. He appeared very nervous and ill at ease as well he might for with every word he was suggesting that his interest was more prejudicial than personal.

The members were then invited to comment. Cllr Friar jumped at the chance and throw questions to Mr Hughes and effectively led the proceedings from then on. He asked if the club had considered putting the driving range elsewhere on the course on the level and un-overlooked ground of the main body of the course. This possibility had been suggested in one or two of the letters of objection. It seemed that it hadn't but that it should have.

Cllr. Friar proposed that the application be refused which was duly seconded. There being no other proposal it was put to the vote. The vote was seven for the proposal with two noticeable abstentions from the chair

This was the first planning application that included buildings on these top fields to go to committee.Its rejection in conjunction with Jill Kingaby's rejection of built sports facilities on Strawberry Field now surely sets a solid precedent against future development on these fields. What message will Cllrs. Lovell and Meech be taking back to the town council? What now for Strawberry Field? How can the £65,000 plus of taxpayers money now be justified?

A report of the meeting will be posted here on Thursday evening.

Also at the 1993 meeting was Cllr. Owen Lovell. He has shown a remarkable change of attitude, implicit in having attended the meeting, from finding the practice area - without buildings - an "unacceptable intrusion into area of outstanding natural beauty, prominent hilltop situation" to becoming the chairman of the town council's Strawberry Field Committee with its 'raison d'être' to develop sporting facilities including buildings on the town council owned Strawberry Field. Being in the Strawberry Field driving seat he should not be chairing the committee due to determine a neighbouring and potentially influencing planning application.

12.1 Conclusion
On a prominent site, in a visually sensitive location within the AONB, the proposed development would erode the rural character and appearance of the area and, in the absence of an overriding need or justification for the development at this location, priority should be given to the protection of the AONB.

11.7
As already described, the site is in a sensitive location on a prominent hillside within the AONB, in open countryside and overlooking an extremely attractive valley. The original approval in 1993 for the golf practice area implies acknowledgement of the site’s sensitivity – perhaps in response to the town council’s then objection to the development – by adding the following informatives to the decision notice:-

"The Planning authority wish it to be known that although they support the principle of the use of this land as a golf practice area strong resistance would be met for any application to develop the site further with structures or buildings and to illuminate the practice area."

1. Outside defined development boundary.
2. Unacceptable intrusion into area of outstanding natural beauty prominent hilltop situation.
3. Neighouring property has had consistent refusal for development on highway grounds.

Bearing in mind that "strong resistance would be met", what was the golf club thinking about even making such an application for a building on this site?
Could this merely be answered by the fact that they had forgotten and failed to refer to their original planning consent details?

It was the request of the committee's chairman Cllr. Owen Lovell to have the Development Control West Committee decide on this application after the previous two driving range applications had been decided on under delegated powers. You may recall that Cllr Lovell happens to be, in association with his vice-chairman Ken Meech, one of Lyme's two representatives at the district council.

What we should now be having from the two councillors is a statement that due to their declared interests in the development of Strawberry Field they will not be taking part in the hearing to decide the outcome of the application. Being the council's Strawberry Field Committee chairman Cllr. Lovell's support for development on this ridge cannot be doubted. He was quoted in the Lyme Regis News for 22 July 2005 at the time that LR Football Club pulled out of being the driving force behind Strawberry Field development as saying, "I think we should now pursue this as a town. I want us to be in the driving seat."

Whilst Cllr Meech only on 28th April 2006 in his letter to the Lyme Regis News said, "One thing you can be sure of is that I shall, in the future, pursue this [Strawberry Field] project with the utmost vigour". It is doubtful that this vigour will be contained by the hedgerow separating Strawberry Field from the site of the proposed driving range and due to their associations Cllrs Lovell and Meech should have no part in the decision of this application. Any first encroachment on this highly visible ridgeline would encourage further development on adjacent fields particularly Strawberry Field.

If you also consider that these two councillors should not have any input into the hearing please write to Mr Alan Muir, WDDC's Legal Services Manager & Monitoring Officer asking him to advise the two councillors accordingly. Details of how to do so are available here.

The case officer's full report can be viewed by clicking here, inserting the planning application number (1/W/06/000161), click Search and by further clicking on the Report tab and View Document (be patient).

Nobody seemed to be aware that if the town council recommends approval of the planning application they may be seen as attempting to set a precedent for development in the area, which could benefit the council's desire to develop their own Strawberry Field. See what was said last year.

Or could it be related to the article that appeared in a recent edition of the News in which government inspector Jill Kingaby said that Strawberry Field is not suitable for built recreation facilities?

As the inspector had been dealing with objections to West Dorset District Council's as yet unadopted Local Plan the Lyme Regis Town Council and the golf club are fully aware that once adopted there will then be a statutory block on development in this area. The owners of these two fields therefore see a possible window of opportunity in obtaining planning permission for their schemes. Although West Dorset District Council Director of Planning and Environment David Evans said: "This is not a binding report [Jill Kingaby's] but we have to follow the inspector's recommendations unless there are very clear and sound planning reasons to do otherwise, which have not been fully considered during the inquiry process".

See government inspector Jill Kingaby's report

Essential details are that representation must be in by 31st March.

The building is basically the same as that of the previous application but it will be sunk into the ground by 900 millimetres. This will result in cutting the height of the building when viewed from the road by 900 mm. The ground to the front of the driving range building will be cut away forming a splayed area with a gentle gradient sloping down from the front of the building. This area will extend to about 30 metres in front of the building. The result of this is that the full frontal dimensions of the building will still be visible from across the valley along Harcombe Road. There is yet again as in the previous two applications a lack of measurements for the building.

This application comes just a few weeks after a government appointed inspector, looking into objections to the draft local plan, said that the next field to the practice field - Strawberry Field - was not suitable for built recreational facilities.

Is the club attempting to obtain planning permission before the draft local plan is adopted?

We all along maintained that mm02 had no justifiable reason for installing the mast on the site and certainly not under emergency powers See entry 8th October 2004. The last paragraph on page one shows that WDDC agrees on this point.

The cabinets housing the control equipment were removed this morning and taken to Trinity Hill where a mast share scheme has been agreed and for which planning permission was given in December 2004. Work later began on dismantling the actual mast but dusk overtook the operation and it can be assumed that tomorrow will see the last of the mast.

This morning as the day dawned it was obvious that a track has been laid to access the mast and with luck it will be gone in the next day or two.

The question is where will it go? Trinity Hill is the best bet but you never know. All the same keep a look out in your area.

Many thanks are again due to everyone who has supported the removal of this illegally installed mast.

According to the website Online Planning Aid Ground g) states, "That the period allowed by the notice to comply with any requirement is unreasonably short for what is required". What is required in this instant is, "..the removal of the mast, together with ancillary equipment, from the land"

mm02 have not asked the Inspectorate to consider granting planning consent, therefore they will not get consent even if their appeal is successful. If the appeal is dismissed then the Notice comes back into effect and they will have to comply or face further action.

The argument that insufficient time has been given seems completely irrelevant for you will remember that mm02 said the mast was installed on an emergency footing in October 2004. They were therefore fully aware that under the emergency ruling that right would elapse after six months. At the time of the council issuing the enforcement notice, on 27th October 2005, the mast had been on site for over a year. As far as I see it a silent self imposed enforcement order to remove the mast commenced on 6th April 2005, six months after the installation. In all this mm02 are solely playing for time by using the system that they understand perfectly well. I predict that before the inspectorate has decided on this issue the mast will be gone.

Whatever the outcome of this matter mm02 will be rubbing their hands in the knowledge that they had no right in the first place to install the mast under emergency powers and to date have duped WDDC into 15 months of being relegated to mere observers on the sidelines.

For a discussion on emergency powers related to this site go back to 8th October 2004

If the appeal was for anything other than a TETRA mast I would say that they had very little chance of success, but with the government supporting the rolling out of the TETRA system I have serious doubts that the appeal will be rejected. Whatever conclusion the Planning Inspectorate comes to mm02 will have once again gained more time. They certainly know how to use the system

If their appeal is successful will it then mean that the mast can stay indefinitely without there ever having been any planning application?

I don't quite understand what could be a specific reason for an appeal in this case, for I would have thought it straight forward that mm02 erected a mast without planning permission and to regularize the situation all that is needed would be for mm02 to make a retrospective planning application. That they have not done so further illustrates the maverick attitude they have for the planning laws. I can also understand that if the enforcement notice was served during the first six months of the mast's residency, for mm02 could have suggested, quite wrongly of course, that under emergency powers they were allowed to install it there for six months without planning permission, but it has now been in place on the practice field for 14 months.

The trouble here is how do you deal with a maverick company like mm02? A company that illegally installed both the Stonebarrow Lane and the Lyme Golf Club's practice field masts without planning permission on 7th October last year.

I wonder how forlorn the hope is of moving the mast to the golf course. Have talks already began on this possibility? I doubt it. To refresh your memory of what were the company's original preferences for sites go to the entry for 9th July 2004.

Perhaps their reluctance of taking up their planning permission to share the mast at the Trinity Hill site indicates that mm02 are playing a waiting game. Could they be waiting for the time when it dawns on the golf club that they stand to loose the £6,000 rental fee at present being received for using their practice field? The WDDC has already expressed its intention to enforce the removal of the illegally installed mast. Would this then encourage the club to agree to the TETRA sharing of the existing mast in their car park?

Don't get me wrong I am not condoning the use of the car park for the TETRA. That will be a battle that will have to be fought when the time comes.

This was the club's initial reaction to the previously refused application. In fact no appeal materialised. The golf club now finds itself with an interesting dilemma. If they appeal it will have to be against the most recent decision, the time limit in which to appeal for the previous application having expired last March, and if the appeal is successful they will still only be getting a second "best" driving range. Would they therefore be advised to resubmit their previous application as a new application or perhaps a hybrid between the two, wait for the subsequent refusal and then appeal against that? I think that it could be yet another year before this issue is finally put to bed.

"The proposal comprises development in the open countryside, within the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) where the primary objective of planning policy is the conservation of the natural beauty of the landscape. Having regard to its location, size and prominence the development would be contrary to this objective and detrimental to the rural character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to Environment Policy G (Re: AONB) of the Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (adopted July 2000), Policy L1 (Re: the AONB) of the West Dorset District Local Plan (adopted November 1998), and Policy SA1 (Re: the AONB) of the West Dorset District Local Plan Revised Deposit (published March 2004), as well as to the objectives of the landscape character designation of "West Dorset Farmland" in West Dorset 2000 (adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance in February 2002)."

Congratulations all round. Thank you very much for all that you have done towards achieving this welcome outcome.

With four failed planning applications for this and the neighbouring Strawberry Field the town council and the golf club should now be aware that any proposal for development on these important and highly visible fields will be extremely difficult to obtain.

Cllr.Peter Williams, brother of Stan who was removed from the council after breaching the code of conduct, said that, "We don't have a planning application in for the field", meaning that in that case their interest is of no significance.

Cllr.Daryl Turner said that as they recommended the previous application, which was for a bigger building, it must follow that they must do so with this one. The question really wanting asking here is, "How did they get away with it last time?"

Cllr.Lorna Jenkin said that they had recommended the previous application a few weeks ago, which she hastily attempted correcting to a few months ago. Proof that time really does fly.

There was then a lot of mumbling and out of it it slowly dawned on the audience of two and a reporter that the council had recommended the application for approval. I wonder what the Standards Board will have to say about that?

Mr Sole also reminds us of the involvement in this of the two town councillors, Owen Lovell and Ken Meech, who also sit as chairman and vice-chairman of the Development Control West Committee, the actual planning committee that will decide this application.

At least on the plans for the 2004 application measurements were given of the dimensions of the driving range building, although they were incorrect, they are completely absent on the 2005 plans. These plans will have to be revised and comment and criticism at this stage could prove irrelevant, other than to say that little seems to have been learnt from the previous application's mistakes.

All the same we can, as the building seems to be constructed in modules, say that the dimensions will be about 20 metres long and the roof at the front, as in the 2004 plans, will be about 4 metres high. A forlorn attempt is being made to screen the building, which of course is an impossibility when considering the building's function, with a few trees being planted at each end of the building. Additional trees planted in the present hedge in the corner of the field in the vicinity of the building will help to screen it from the road. None of this will block the ugly building from sight when viewed from across the valley. Two row of deciduous trees will be planted around the extended car park which will have little effect during the winter.

The only other information available on the site is the date by which representations should be made and that is 5th August 2005. This date points to an advertising date for the application of 15th July by which time full details should be available on the council's website.

The timing of the application like the previous one is to coincide with the holiday period in the hope that many people will be away and otherwise occupied, which points to the degree of confidence that the club has in this application.

If you want keeping up todate on developments of this application please come back to this page or email me at the address at the bottom to be emailed when more information is available.

It is not known if the enforcement measures relate to the illegal installation under supposedly emergency powers or because after today, emergency powers or not, the mast will be without planning consent.

The alternative, complete with planning permission, and preferred mast share for this TETRA at Trinity Hill is yet to be implemented. It is therefore unlikely, considering mm02's track record, that the practice area TETRA will be removed until the Trinity Hill site has been utilised.

Lyme Regis News featured the story on the front page in the 8th April 2005 edition.

This chicken is about to come home to roost, for even if it was maintained that the mast was installed under emergency powers those powers are only valid for six months. For this particular installation those powers would expire on 7 April 2005. A planning application should have, but has not, been made to give sufficient time to be either approved or rejected before that date. After 7 April WDDC will have no excuse for allowing this mast to remain in position.

Whatever happened to the tactical advantage that the Development Services Manager, John Greenslade, had suggested had been gained on removing the previous mast on the golf course?

Yet again Uplyme and EDDC have shown how accommodating they are to those across the border. A reciprocal gesture is now long overdue.

Regarding the illegal installation, UPC having written to WDDC, the council have been informed that an enforcement officer has been allocated to investigate the case. It is now over two months since I informed WDDC's planning officer of this illegal installation, how long does it take to decide that the installation is illegal and issue an enforcement notice and a stop order?

At the time of mmo2's retrospective planning application to extend, until the end of August 2004, the installation of the TETRA mast elsewhere on the golf course West Dorset's Development Services manager John Greenslade said that, "by granting the [planning permission] extension the committee could impose conditions requiring its removal and achieve a tactical advantage" (Lyme Regis News 20th Aug 2004)

Really? mmo2 continues to run rings around planning authorities throughout the country and WDDC is no exception. What is so infuriating is the fact that the authorities fail to learn from each other. mmo2 have been around long enough for some collective action to be developed in dealing with this maverick of a company. Or is it that they just can't be bothered for mmo2 only pass their way once? Hopefully.

The meeting was informed of the agricultural building waiting to cast its shadow over the Harcombe Valley. Councillors found it quite extraordinary that loop holes in the planning law allow a large building such as this to be freely built in a prominent position when there is such, as has recently been shown, effective legislation to protect this very same area against non-agricultural development. They expressed their concern that the case officer "found them [the proposal] to be acceptable" particularly regarding the approved materials and their colouring and the lack of screening. The fact that the area of the building was just within the size that required planning approval was commented on by several councillors. They found it exceedingly frustrating that after the battles to protect this valley from the developments of sports complexes and a driving range they and everyone who objected to these developments have their hands tied behind their backs over this one.

It was agreed that a letter will be written to the WDDC planning office lodging the council's anxieties over this development.

The building is of a similar size to the clubhouse proposed for the Strawberry Field sports complex, a building that the case officer was not at all happy with regarding size, siting and unsatisfactory screening. The farm building will measure 24 metres long, 18 metres wide and be 7.5 metres high. Nearly twice as high, almost as long and much wider than the driving range building would have been.

Cynics amongst you may suspect that this building was intentionally designed to nicely slip under the planning ruling that says that planning permission is not required for agricultural buildings under 465 sq.metres. This building will be 432 sq.metres!

It is extremely unlikely that "A landscaped bank [that] is proposed on the west side of the building", the size of which is probably left to the good will of the landowner, will do anything to screen such a bulk on this sloping site. The building will stand starkly in a spot that naturally attracts the eye.

Under the notification procedure, that the landowner is obliged to conform to, the Local Planning Authority has a limited opportunity to consider siting and appearance. We are told, "The case officer had regard to these issues when examining the proposal and found them to be acceptable" and that, "The use of dark coloured non reflective external facing materials such as wood, concrete block or profiled sheeting would normally give an acceptable appearance to the building". They may be acceptable to someone sitting in an office in Dorchester but he does not have to daily see this grotesque anachronism to planning laws that, as recent events have made clear , are otherwise working to protect this AONB against unnecessary, inappropriate and ugly development.

The materials for this building are to be concrete block and fibre cement walls with a fibre cement roof. Concrete block cannot be considered to be a "dark coloured" material and the colouring of the cement fibre walls and roof do not appear to be have been specified.

It must be very frustrating for the planning officers having worked so diligently in warding off recent planning applications to deface the Harcombe Valley then to be almost powerless when faced with this development. The question is did they make the most of their limited powers?

The cavalry may be over the horizon, but alas too late to help here, in that some LPAs are now following guidelines that within AONBs agricultural buildings should be constructed with traditional materials. This must surely become a national policy for you can't have the situation that now exists where the most carefully and environmentally friendly designed buildings are not allowed whilst almost any farm building can be put up without any concern or thought for the countryside by the so called custodians of the very same thing.

Will this ugly modern out of place building in the valley be an epitaph, for the next hundred years or more, of the time when planning policy needed a little further to go to be joined up?

This follows the good neighbourly gesture of allowing the temporary park and ride on the western approach to Lyme. Now the ball is in the town council's court to reciprocate the move.

The other article reported on Lyme Regis town council's reception of the second planning application by Orange to revamp the mast installation on Lyme's Charmouth Road car park. Cllr. Stan Williams said the approach to Lyme Regis along the Charmouth Road was "the biggest mess I've ever seen anywhere" and a new mobile phone mast would not do anything for the first impressions of Lyme Regis. I hope he extends this new found awareness of visitor's first impressions of Lyme to include developments at Strawberry Field and the practice area along this same road. We await, with interest, to see how the council views the TETRA mast, if or when an application is ever forthcoming.

The district council being owners of the Charmouth Road car park compelled cllr. Nigel Clarke to say, "It's like giving themselves planning permission". Let's hope that when the town council makes a recommendation regarding the next planning application to develop Strawberry Field they will remember who owns that piece of land!

Considering the town council's reaction to the Orange application their silence on the illegally installed TETRA mast is all the more deafening.

The club is also desperate to see the TETRA installation becoming permanent. This would assure them of a £6,000 annual income from the rental fee that mm02 would pay for the TETRA site for the next 20 years.

This is not the case. The fact that the original temporary planning permission terminated on 31st May 2004 and the extension on 31st August 2004 means that 'mm02' were well aware that they would be asked to remove the mast at the expiry of the permission. That they did not prepare for it, by making a planning application for the new site, does not constitute an emergency. Attempting to circumvent the planning law by using emergency powers is standard practice with this company.

Our first task is to challenge this with the WDDC and details of how to do this are given on the new page dedicated to the TETRA mast.

Mr Sitch said,"I'm sure the residents don't want a situation where police and ambulance and fire brigade won't be able to operate". But a TETRA Report in The Ecologist - October 2004 said that, "According to the House of Commons Library Research Papers, the fire and ambulance services have rejected [TETRA], apparently for reasons of cost". The situation is glossed over in 'mm02's' recently published 'Third Annual Review', by saying, "We are also in the advanced stages of bidding for the nationwide Fire and Ambulance Service contracts"

The golf club's involvement beggars belief. Convinced of the inherent dangers of the TETRA system, golf club "members voted overwhelmingly" to remove the mast from the 18th tee. Unfortunately their aversion to TETRA did not go as far as declining the £6,000 rental fee and ban the mast entirely. Instead they decided that it should go in a far corner. It’s morally indefensible that having expressed their views on TETRA, lacking the courage of their convictions, they continue to court 'mm02's' favours.

A consequence of using the practice field, the mast not being ideally positioned regarding coverage, is that a second mast is required and the people of Stonebarrow have now to suffer a mast in their midst.

Of course members using the practice field will continue to be exposed to what the club has obviously considered a danger. That’s their choice, the people of Stonebarrow have none!

Say n02 TETRA!

The TETRA mast towering above the roadside hedgerows and the Harcombe Valley

Already, within an hour of the mast going up, I am being asked, "How did they get planning permission for it and who do I complain to?" The answer is they didn't and of course a quick phone call to the planning office in Dorchester, 01305 251010, would not go amiss. There will shortly be a page on this site dedicated to what action you can take. It is beginning to take shape.

How wrong you can be. I suggested that MM02 had chosen the Stonebarrow site for the TETRA mast. But today the TETRA mast was also being installed at Stonebarrow, the reason being that my assumption made on 11 June was correct, in that the site on the driving range cannot adequately cover Lyme. A second transmitter is therefore necessary and that is the one at Stonebarrow. So the refusal of the golf club to allow sharing of the present mast in their car park has resulted in two masts to cover the same area .

It is indefensible that the golf club have allowed the use of their practice area within a couple of weeks of WDDC refusing them planning permission to install a driving range elsewhere on the field. The club now have first hand knowledge of planning restrictions in the AONB and how the WDDC views development on this sensitive hillside and should have insisted that planning permission should first have been obtained. The choice of the practice area contradicts MM02's policy, the industry guidelines as well as government recommendations on the siting of masts. They give primary importance to site or mast sharing. This was MM02's original option for a permanent mast and included the possibility of sharing the Trinity Hill mast and of course the one on the golf club's car park. There are several other masts in the area which could also be shared, there is no need for new locations

* There does seem to be some confusion over whether or not planning permission is required for temporary masts, although MM02 have a reputation for installing and applying for permission retrospectively. Remember that they did eventually make a retrospective application 1/W/03/001135 in June of 2003 for the temporary mast now on the golf course, and knowing how they operate they are very unlikely to make an application that is not necessary.

There is provision under the law for temporary siting, free of planning permission, for a period of 28 days, see: Campaign for Planning Sanity website for an explanation and suggested letter of complaint. This is probably MM02's way around this by saying that it was originally for a period under 28 days.

Also emergency siting for a period of 6 months, free of planning permission, is allowed but this cannot be classed as an emergency, MM02 have known for a considerable time that a site to replace the existing one was needed. Again see the Campaign for Planning Sanity website.

Stephen Wright, the golf club secretary, said that the club, still getting over the initial shock, is likely to appeal against the decision. He said that the reasons given for the refusal had never been mentioned before. Shame that he never looked at this website, where the reasons for rejection are fully discussed. The fact that they intend to appeal indicates that they still have not learnt the lesson why development is not possible in this area. An appeal inspector has already said that the Lym Valley "is clearly an asset which should not be further eroded by non-essential development"

The matter of decisions being taken by delegated powers was touched on in the article. More on the WDDC's procedure for using this approach can be found on their website. See pages 152 and 154-156

We can briefly congratulate ourselves for successfully helping to overthrow this application. Special thanks particularly from the people of the Harcombe Valley to all those who objected against the driving range even though they have no direct connection with the immediate area. It is easy enough objecting to proposals that would impinge on your daily life but it needs a definite determination and concern for the bigger picture to do so from the other side of the country, as some people did. To these people a specially big thank you.

I said briefly, for towards the end of August it was evident that a farm building would soon be assembled somewhere in the area of the practice field. We have now heard from Senior Planning Officer, Andrew Jordan, that notification was received in May 2002 for a farm building to be sited on the lower left corner of where the hedgerows cross on the picture at the top of this page. Apparently this building is of a size below that for which planning permission is required providing that the building will be acceptable in size, location and external appearance. It was therefore decided by the planning office, without any outside consultation, that the building constituted permitted development.

Should the fact that this is a farm building overthrow all AONB policies to protect the landscape? Would this building in such a prominent position be acceptable in a National Park? If not then it is not acceptable in an AONB.

I hope that since the notification of the farmer's intent, over two years ago, AONBs are being taken more seriously, and recent attitudes coming from WDDC planning office suggest that they are, and that this kind of thing cannot happen again.

Alas there is probably nothing that can now be done to stop this building. But there is no harm in trying!

Today it was difficult obtaining any additional information from the planning office. As soon as anymore news is available I will put it on the website.

The ramifications of this decision should now make it increasingly difficult to obtain approval for any follow up plans to develop Strawberry Field . The precedents are stacking up and the time may have come for the football club to divorce itself from the town council and look elsewhere.

Stonebarrow was one of MM02's chosen sites as was the golf club's car park. Will the club climb down on refusing the car park site now that MM02 seem not to be interested in the club's offer of their practice area. £6,000 may help to change their mind.

Professor Richard Whitfield also added more to the more general discussion on sports, the Woodroffe School and the AONB

The meeting appeared to be a complete farce. This was a "Planning Committee Meeting" but where were the planning policies that control development especially that within an AONB and outside the Defined Development Boundary?

Instead what was heard was that Cllr. Stan Williams's elderly friends needed this range for them to get exercise and fresh air! "They should be able to have their enjoyment along with the youngsters and their skate board park"
"Everyone fell over themselves to give them a skate board park". How many years did they have to wait, I lost count at 20 years!

Cllr. Lorna Jenkin said the golf club suffered with fog, and this would give golfers more space to play. But not so much fog as this meeting produced in its effort to smoke screen the issues. I don't know if Cllr. Jenkin realizes that this application is not for the creation of extra playing land, not even the town council could help with that. The golfers already have this space on which to play they call it their practice area.

Cllr. Ken Dibben paved the way for the possible installation of floodlighting by saying that there was car light pollution all along the road anyway, having said previously, "The balls will go so far down the hill, you'd have some fairly massive lights to light it up"

Cllr. Spencer Hogg gave a clue to the vital link in all this, by saying that, he knew the council should support the application, bearing in mind the council supported the football club's failed application to build a timber clubhouse in the neighbouring field. New readers should know that the neighbouring field in question is Strawberry Field which happens to be owned by this very same town council that financially supported with council tax payers money a planning application on their own land!

All the same he was a bit horrified by the dimensions of the driving range and said "It's a mighty slug sitting on top of the hill"

There was one letter of objection, from a Lyme resident, expressing "strong objections to this unwarranted, major and ‘luxury’ application". Unfortunately it lost some of its impact by chairman Michaela Ellis first reading out an unrelated section of the letter.

To the recommendation of approval was added the proviso that the driving range will have to be screened. Anyone having given this application no more than a moment's thought will know that this is an impossibility. Therefore, perhaps unbeknown to them, they are saying no to the application!

Development Control West Committee chairman and vice-chairman Councillors Lovell and Meech were not present at the meeting.

Evidence showing that The Town Council is aware of Policies Protecting this area.

Although they chose to ignore them on this occasion!

• The council's recent recommendation to the Development Control West Committee regarding the application to temporary extend permission for the MM02's TETRA mast on the golf course was that "..the mast is outside the defined development boundary, in an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and would be detrimental to neighbouring properties." (Lyme Regis News 16th July 2004)
  
  
• The council recommended refusal, on 4th July 2002, to the DCWC when considering planning application (no.1/W/2002/1060) to extend Hole Cottage, half a kilometre from the practice area on the grounds that is was "Outside the Development Boundary"
  
  
• With another 2002 application to "Demolish existing derelict building and erect ancillary accommodation" at the Rear of The Coach House, Haye Lane, Lyme Regis, in their recommendation the council "urged refusal, describing the proposal as a 'further encroachment into the Lym Valley' "(Lyme Regis News 21st June 2002)
  
  
• The council's concern for development outside the Defined Development Boundary again came to the fore with an application in 2003 to build a dwelling in the garden of a house in Coram Avenue. Even though there was considerable doubt as to whether or not the site was in fact inside or outside the DDB they recommended refusal on this point.(Pulman's 13th August 2003)

The outcome of this application will be eagerly awaited by those interested in development in this area. It will become a precedent to be quoted in support for or against further applications including the inevitable one for Strawberry Field. You can help to make it a precedent against any future development.

We cannot have too many letters to the planning office, how else can they judge the opposition to these projects. This is the last week-end in which to write. Could you not find half an hour or so to knock out a letter?
It would be much appreciated, thanks in advance.

It has nothing to do with the importance of the application but merely refers to the priority given the application regarding the urgency of processing the application. These categories were imposed by central government.

• Out to stop driving range
• Council 'no' to golf club plans
• Demand that councillors be excluded

"Lyme Regis Golf Club has declined to comment"

Chairman and golf club member, Beryl Denham, brought to our attention another aspect of driving ranges, not so far touched on here, that of noise. Apparently modern driving clubs have steel heads and the noise created on impact with the ball is considerable. Other members described this as similar to a gun shot. One isolated crack would be insignificant but when eight rangers are letting loose their couple of pounds worth of 50 or so balls the driving range would seem more like a firing range!

Chris Sellars wisely warned against using this in their argument until the noise aspect has been fully investigated.

It was pointed out that the application had been classed as "Category DOE Class 10" which was of the lowest importance. A member of the Development Control West Committee, unfamiliar with the area, on seeing this in conjunction with the plan's complete lack of any detail of the contours of the area would quite understandably think that the area was flat and approve the application and move on to the next. It was assumed that one of the reasons the plans had been sent back to the golf club was that heights should be inserted on the plans. See contour diagram if you want convincing that this area is not flat!

A letter to the parish council from David Sole was read out - and included here - and Peter Burton read out a piece, from Gerald Hughes's damning report on the Strawberry Field application, that described the Harcombe Valley in almost poetic terms:

"From Uplyme to near Raymond's Hill , the valley of Rhode Barton and Harcombe Bottom (un-named on OS Maps) is very attractive countryside, intimate in its complex folds, wooded areas and field patterns with sporadic farms and homesteads served by a narrow winding lane, and a network of footpaths giving access to this quiet and distinctively separate sense of place. The valley's upper slopes, of which the application site is a part, are integral to the whole, all of which falls within the 2 AONBs that have been referred to."

First impressions are that the plans are not very accurate, some of the measurement do not correspond to the proportions of the drawings, measurements are in metric and imperial and that the parking is still for a minimum of 12 places. It all looks rather unprofessional and slap dash.

The plans show a distinctly ugly building of 29.5 metres (96' 7") long and 6 metres (19' 8") deep increasing in part to 10 metres (32' 9"), with the front of the building probably over 4 metres (13 feet) high - confusing and some incorrect measurements given on plans . This will provide a full frontal face towards Harcombe and will appear as a gaping black rectangular hole sucking in everyone's attention from across the valley. From the road behind an equally ugly sight will be the "box profile steel sheeting" roof measuring over 30 metres (98 feet) by 10.5 metres (34 feet) at its maximum.

The fact that the second application left the maximum number of parking places in doubt suggests that the golf club has no idea of the numbers of punters that the range will attract and that they are already edging their bets for a possible expansion of individual driving places if the installation proves successful.

Surely a driving range of X number of booths will require Y number of parking places?
To cater for driving rangers to come separately there must be at least one parking place per booth. Observing the small number of members that currently use their practice area suggests that most of them arrive singularly in separate cars.

An open ended number of parking places points to an ultimately undefined number of booths.

Neither of the town's district councillors, cllrs. Lovell and Meech who also serve as chairman and vice-chairman of the Development Control West committee, attended the meeting. The mayor cllr. Barbara Austin did so although she is on record, regarding the possible permanent siting of a TETRA mast on the practice area, as saying , "..nobody knew when the emergency services might be needed".

Reported in Lyme Regis News (16th July 2004)

One of the contentious points with the original application was the parking provision. This it is said was for just six additional places. The latest application gives the number of parking places as "a minimum of 12". Apparently open ended! Not something that is likely to be accepted by the planning officers.

Can I remind you that this application is for an extension of three months running from the beginning of June to the end of August. If the application is advertised in the next issue of the Lyme Regis News on 16th July the period of 21 days for the public to make comments to the district council will terminate on 6th August. It is extremely unlikely that the WDDC's Development Control West Committee will make a decision until the end of August at the earliest making the whole exercise a waste of time and as there is no sign of an application for a permanent site for the mast, come September this temporary site will once again be illegal. MM02 are seriously becoming a serial law breaker with this mast. September will see the mast being in position for a third illegal period.

This three month extension should therefore be withdrawn and one for a longer period be submitted.

It reveals that MM02's preferred permanent site for the mast is still to share the existing CrownCastle mast on the golf club's car park, "Airwave have investigated utilizing the existing CCI site as the permanent option but the Golf Club will not grant permission for this structure to be shared."

In the Planning Application Supporting Statement a list of possible permanent sites that were being assessed was included,

1. A new installation at the Golf Club practice area.
2. A co-location or site share with the existing Orange / Vodafone installations located in the car park adjacent to Charmouth Road, Lyme Regis.
3. A co-location or site share with the NTL site, Stonebarrow Lane, Charmouth
4. A site share on the Vodafone site, Trinity Hill, Uplyme.

In addition local sites that were not listed and which may prove suitable on assessment are,

1. The Orange site of Shire Lane
2. the Orange and Vodafone sites north of Pen Cross

There is no indication in the application documents that any of these other sites has been assessed. The revised West Dorset Local Plan has a policy dedicated to telecommunications developments. Policy IN7 amongst other things states that the applicant must show that the possibility of sharing masts has been explored.

As for why the golf club is refusing MM02 to share the CCI mast I have heard one cynical remark made that there is more money in an additional site rental than in sharing an existing one with an extra antenna!

Please note that even though the details of an application are available on the internet the district council must still make an official advertisement in the local press and a period of three weeks must then be given for public comments

The town council now faces a dilemma. Will the councillors agree to extend permission for an application that they original recommended for refusal (this page) and where the land owner has told the applicant to remove the mast. An added complication is the fact that it was Lyme Regis Town Cllr. Lovell who used his chairman's casting vote on the Development Control West Committee to push through the application.

Barbara Austin has already said, regarding the TETRA mast being moved to the practice area, "nobody knew when the emergency services might be needed"

The public have until the 26th July 2004* to register their comments to:

Andrew Jordan
Planning Department
West Dorset District Council,
58/60 High West Street,
Dorchester, DT1 1UZ

* As the application was not advertised in the Lyme Regis News of 2nd July and presumably will not be until the next issue, the three week period for public scrutiny will not terminate until 30th July.

The non-availability of any concrete planning application may have left the society a little in the dark as to what is a driving range. Having now done a little homework the society has posted an update of its thoughts on their notice board at the Uplyme village shop

Of course driving ranges come in various sizes and we assume that the one envisaged is not of the proportions of the Watford one depicted on the home page of a diving range website.

Coming so close on the heels of the Strawberry Field proposal this application must not be seen as an isolated development. When the driving range was first mooted last autumn it was said that the golf club would watch very interestedly how the next door application fared and now it is certain that the football club will do likewise. To allow the driving range to go ahead would be to give a foothold for development overlooking this beautiful valley the repercussions of which would be far reaching, and of its significance we on this side of the fence are only beginning to become aware.

It seems that the golf club have told Airwave MMO2 that their only acceptable location for the TETRA mast on the golf course is the practice area. This goes against MMO2's concern for the environment, satisfactory radio reception and their previously chosen preferred site (see 14th April). This picture shows just how shielded the practice area site is from Lyme Regis and the question must be asked "Will a 22 metre mast at this spot provide adequate coverage for the town?"

Although the members have made it clear that they are not happy with the present position of the mast's location they obviously don't want it where MMO2 would like to position it, which is where the present CrownCastle mast is on the club's carpark. This siting would cut down on the proliferation of masts and aerials throughout the landscape, would hide the ancillary control cabins and the majority of the mast from view and give the required reception that is essential for the efficient working of the system in Lyme Regis.

On the other hand MMO2 may have difficulty finding an alternative site, they have tried and rejected several sites either because of the detrimental affect on the landscape or because of poor reception. The former definetely applies to the practice area site and probably also the latter.

The golf club want their cake and eat it. Wanting the commonly agreed annual rental fee of £6,000 but still insist that the mast goes as far from their sight as possible not caring about the affect on the landscape of the AONB or the wishes of the people of Harcombe. Incidentally have they been consulted?
I think not. Apparently the golf club has not learnt from the insensitive mistakes made by the town council and the football club.

Town councillors declined to comment on a pre-application request for comments from the MMO2. It may be recalled though that the mayor Barbara Austin has already made her views known on the subject.

This application promises to fill the gap before the next round of planning applications for the Strawberry Field saga. We will be revisiting the favourite topics of vested interest regarding cllrs Lovell and Meech and how they will respond to this application following their declaration not to sit on the committee that would have determined the Strawberry field application.

This, together with the Driving Range, is another planning application that promises to run and run!

Although the application arrived at the WDDC offices on 12th May it is still sitting in the pending try. For some reason the application has yet to be registered and allocated an application number. It will then be advertised. Details will of course be available on the WDDC website and we will be keeping a close watch on it here.

The prospect of a driving range was first mooted in the Lyme Regis News of 24th Oct 2003

Email:   johnrhodehill.co.uk

Reading the paper work that accompanied the retrospective planning application last summer it can be gathered that MM02 is fully aware of people's concern for the placing of these masts. They had considered many possible sites and rejected most of them with such comments as:

"The farm offered inadequate screening, meaning that any proposal would have been visually obtrusive and a prominent addition to the skyline in the area."

Although a permanent location on the golf course has been earmarked the practice area is not it. They have chosen the club's car park where the CrownCastle mast is located.

"..in order that their installation in the area has a minimum impact on the character of the AONB within which it must be positioned in order to provide the required level of radio coverage."

No hiding place on the member's practice range for this mast.

Click on the picture for large imagines of mast and cabin.

The town council recommended refusal of the retrospective planning application for the siting of the mast last summer, saying that the site was "outside the defined development boundary in an area of outstanding natural beauty and would be detrimental to the amenity of neighouring properties". Barbara Austin, the mayor of Lyme Regis, has now come out in support of the siting on the practice area even though plans are not yet available and the site is fully exposed whilst the present location is relatively well screened. She was reported as saying it was for the emergency services and nobody knew when the emergency services might be needed. Strange that this had not crossed her mind when the town council recommended refusal of the application last summer.
Where is the consistency of approach?

It seems that the town council is determined to destroy this valley with a gradual degradation and eventually, because of this, hope to get their way when the rot has fully set-in.

What happened to the desire for a better relationship between the town council and Uplyme parish council which the mayor spoke so hopefully at the beginning of the year?
Now is the time to consult Uplyme on this proposal before it goes much further.

This short article indicates the tip of the iceberg of planning applications that are waiting in the wings on the outcome of the Strawberry Field application.