Decision details

To defend the non-determination planning appeal for application P/OUT/2021/04412 for the reasons set out below. 

Planning appeal reference: APP/D1265/W23/335232 

Planning application: P/OUT/2021/04412 

Description of development: Hybrid planning application for:  

                         i.full planning permission for the change of use of agricultural land to Suitable Alternative Natural Green space (SANG) (as an extension to the existing Avon Heath Country Park); the demolition of existing cafe and visitor centre in Avon Heath Country Park; engineering works to remove hard standing from existing country park and restore the land as greenspace; and construction of means of access and car parking to serve the SANG and country park; and  

                       ii.(ii) outline planning permission with details of access submitted for approval and all other matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) reserved for subsequent approval for the development of a surf lagoon, outdoor climbing wall, visitor reception, cafe and administration building, and associated landscaping, together with erection of buildings in the country park extension incorporating new visitor centre (allowing for the continuation of such activities as the 'Nature School' at Avon Health Country Park) and new cafe (to replace demolished country park buildings), car park kiosk, toilets, play facilities and SuDS features; and the erection of wild play structures. 

Location: Land to the south east of the A31 Ringwood Road and to the north east of Brocks Pine, St Leonards and St Ives, BH24 2NR 

The decision is taken to defend the non-determination planning appeal for application P/OUT/2021/04412 based on reasons for refusal relating to the following issues: 

·       Uncertainty exists as to the number of visitors, their likely behaviour and the effectiveness of measures that might reasonably be secured to regulate visitor behaviour so as to ensure no adverse effect on the Dorset Heathlands protected sites. This is contrary to Policy ME1 of the adopted Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1, and whilst this uncertainty exists, permission should not be granted in line with Regulation 63 of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (as amended). 

·       The proposed development is located outside the main urban areas defined in the development plan and would result in a substantial reduction of openness in the Green Belt, and this harm to the Green Belt is not clearly outweighed by other considerations. The proposal is contrary to policies KS2 and KS3 of the adopted Local Plan and paragraph 197 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would result in benefit to the local economy, to health and well-being and would be of some benefit to biodiversity and ecological resources, the circumstances presented in support of the application do not clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt and all other harm. Planning permission should therefore be refused. 

·       The applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users. The proposal therefore does not comply with paragraph 110 (b) of the NPPF. 

·       The applicant has provided insufficient information to enable the highway and planning authorities to fully understand the impact of the development on the safe and efficient operation of the A31 trunk road. The proposal therefore does not comply with paragraph 111 of the NPPF. 

·       The applicant has provided insufficient information to demonstrate whether any unacceptable highway safety impact can be cost effectively mitigated to an acceptable degree. The proposal therefore does not comply with paragraph 110 (d) of the NPPF. 

The decision to defend the planning appeal on the basis of the reasons summarised above is taken under delegated powers, as set out in paragraph 139 of the Officer Scheme of Delegation (which forms part of the Council’s constitution). Paragraph 139 provides the following delegated powers: 

To undertake all action relating to any matter arising in respect of any appeal, call-in and/or other inquiry and/or hearing of whatever nature arising pursuant to any Town and Country Planning Legislation including for the avoidance of doubt but without prejudice to generality of the foregoing: 

(a) to determine any response required in relation to any procedural issue relating to any such matter including for the avoidance of doubt whether any such matter should be dealt with by means of written representation, hearing or public inquiry; 

(b) to determine any procedural issue relating to any such matter including the venue for the holding on any hearing and/or appeal; and/or 

(c) to determine whether or not to defend any reason for refusal. 

These delegated powers have been nominated to the Service Manager for Development Management and Enforcement via the Local Scheme of Nomination for Planning Services – Executive Director of Place. 

The proposals set out in application P/OUT/2021/04412 are considered to conflict with local and national planning policies, for the reasons summarised above. Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed development would result in benefit to the local economy and to health and well-being and would be of some benefit to biodiversity and ecological resources, these benefits are not considered to outweigh the harm identified. In each case the putative reasons for refusal are considered to be justified, based on an assessment of the information and evidence submitted with the application and local and national planning policies, and taking account of the views of consultees.  

An additional putative reason for refusal was identified at the time that the Council’s Statement of Case was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, as set out below: 

·       By reason of size, positioning and nature, the proposed surf lagoon and its associated facilities would detract from the character and appearance of the application site and from the sites setting within a landscape valued for its openness and its recreational amenity. This is contrary to policy HE3 and KS3 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1, and to paragraphs 138, 149 and 174 of the NPPF. 

However, following further detailed analysis, and in preparation of the Council’s proofs of evidence, it has become clear that a reason for refusal on these grounds is not likely to be justified. The impacts of the proposal on openness are covered in the Council’s putative reason for refusal relating to Green Belt. This approach reflects the advice provided by the Council’s Senior Landscape Architect, who has reviewed the proposals in detail, and has undertaken further assessment of the proposals against the requirements of policy HE3 since the submission of the Council’s Statement of Case. The Senior Landscape Architect concludes that it could be ensured that the proposals meet the requirement of policy HE3 at the reserved matters stage, should outline planning approval be granted. The decision not to continue to defend a putative reason for refusal based on the above grounds was informed by advice from the Council’s barrister for this appeal. 

The case officer has undertaken a detailed assessment of the proposals against all relevant local and national planning policies and has concluded that some matters can be addressed by condition, and as such should not form part of the putative reasons for refusal. This includes matters relating to contamination and pollution risk, impact on neighbouring amenity, impact on minerals resources, and design requirements to accord with development plan policies for sustainability. Details of suggested conditions to address these matters will be submitted to the Inspector for their consideration, in the event that the Inspector is minded to approve the appeal. 

There are not considered to be any reasonable alternative options, given the detailed assessment which has been carried out, and in light of the identified conflict with a number of policies in the adopted Local Plan, and with the National Planning Policy Framework.

N/A