Homes west of Watton Lane, Bridport rejected

Neighbours argued that agreeing the proposal was likely to lead to further homes, closing the one remaining green gap in the area.

Despite the refusal the area planning committee was told that one home was already in existence on the field and there is an extant planning consent which could be used for two additional homes, won at appeal.

A planning inspector had decided that the site was ‘sustainable’ because future residents could walk, or cycle, into Bridport from it, without the need for a car.

Site layout - courtesy Langley Construction

But Cllr Sarah Williams said it would be madness for anyone to even attempt the walk along Broad Lane, even on a sunny day, with no pavements, poor visibility and speeding traffic – even more risky to attempt the trip with a pushchair or bags of shopping on a rainy day.

Several residents appeared before the planning committee urging councillors to reject the application which they said would encroach on their privacy and would lead to the loss of the field with its views down to West Bay. Twenty five had written to Dorset Council to object, including Bridport Town Council.

Cllr Paul Hartman from Symondsbury parish council said the formal layout of the homes and their  density were out of keeping with other properties nearby and would have an effect on the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

“It is piecemeal and opportunistic and may well lead to more,” he said, arguing that the proposal was contrary to the Bridport area neighbourhood plan.

Ward councillor David Bolwell, pictured below with residents, said he had walked the footpath route from the site into Bridport, crossing three muddy fields and a rickety stile.

“It would be a brave person indeed who would choose to walk the half mile to Morrisons from there and return with their shopping…it's not a safe route for pedestrians, especially children,” he said.

He told the committee that there was a risk that further proposals might follow and said the layout for the three and four-bed homes looked like a “uniform mini-estate,” rather than something which was in keeping with the rural nature of the area.

“This site should not be developed any further than that already approved,” he said.

The committee unanimously voted to reject the application for the three homes.