PROPOSALS for a seaside sauna at a West Dorset beach has left some residents steaming.

The plans for the year-round sauna and temporary van-based catering units for the seafront at Seatown has been turned down by Dorset Council – after dozens of objections, although there had also been some support, including from the parish council.

The application came from a Kent-based company after the success of similar summer-only units in other holiday towns.

But planning officers have decided that the proposals would be harmful to the heritage coast and village conservation area.

Among the objections was one from a Chideock resident who said the ‘attractions’ would add to air pollution problems in the area, attracting additional traffic.

Said the letter of objection to Dorset Council: “We should not be intensifying use here and should be directing it to areas where there are roads that can support it. I agree that it is great to see small businesses making a a living but this would be better facilitated in West Bay for example.”

Another village resident raised similar views, saying: “Seatown is in a world heritage site and the quaint context alongside the natural beauty gains nothing from this application. It would be over commercialising one of the few areas left in this rural area.”

The Jurassic Coast Trust and Dorset’s Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty team also objected, the AoNB team claiming: “The proposal is for up to five commercial operators, including a massage unit and three food units, that could be present from the beginning of April until the end of October, and a sauna, which would operate throughout the year…

"The AONB Team considers that the application proposes excessive commercialisation of a sensitive location. A reduced number of units (one or two) within a limited operating period that coincides with the summer, may have some potential to be considered as more appropriate. However, even a reduced application would require limitations on the scale of the units, the extent of seating, the permitted operating hours, use of external lighting, etc, as well as conditions that control the stationing of vehicles, tents and other paraphernalia on the site outside of the operating hours.”

Planning officers decided the application failed to meet most of the criteria for development in the protected coastal landscape, summarising: “The units given their number, ad hoc siting and utilitarian/visually poor/crude nature will in themselves create poor visual features as well as harming the overall visual setting of the high quality beachscape (Jurassic Coast), landscape (AONB), designated heritage asset that is the Seatown Conservation Area which is not enhanced or preserved, setting of the Grade II listed Anchor Cottage and significant views from the South West Coastal Path.”