Agenda item

Change of use of the land & erection of Holiday Lodges & Staff Accommodation units, together with installation of infrastructure to form a Holiday Lodge Park in lieu of the current land use of motor racing circuit, shooting ground & static caravan park.

 

With the aid of a visual presentation, including site plans, aerial photographs and photographs of the existing site, the Case Officer identified the application site and outlined the proposal and relevant planning considerations.

 

Members were advised that the site was located off the A37 and benefitted from an established access, forming the main entrance into the wider George Albert Hotel site. The Case Officer explained the site's extensive planning history and historical use, including military-related activities during the Second World War. The wider site currently comprised a mix of uses, including the George Albert Hotel and conference facilities, a gun shop, tea rooms, an antique shop, areas of car parking, a touring caravan site, a static caravan area, a former shooting ground and adjoining agricultural land.

 

The proposal sought the redevelopment of part of the site to provide 226 holiday lodges. Existing static caravans, ancillary buildings and former shooting ground structures would be removed as part of the development, resulting in a more coherent and visually attractive site arrangement. The layout incorporated recreational walking routes, ecological enhancement areas and significant landscape planting. Agricultural land would be converted to habitat creation and ecological enhancement areas, with substantial planting proposed within landscape buffer zones to strengthen the site's setting and biodiversity value. Ecological buffers would be established around key areas of the site.

 

Members were shown the proposed drainage strategy, which included a replacement package treatment plant, sustainable drainage features, soakaways and two ponds. The site was located within Flood Zone 1 and therefore at low risk of flooding. Whilst some isolated surface water pooling had been identified, the Case Officer advised that an appropriate drainage strategy could be achieved.

The proposal also included a new clubhouse building, the continued use of an existing building currently associated with the motor circuit, a new amenity lake and a wildlife pond. Cross-sectional drawings of the ponds were presented, which demonstrated shallow side slopes and gradual gradients designed to ensure safety without the need for perimeter fencing.

 

The existing site entrance was highlighted, together with proposals to reduce the urbanising appearance of certain areas and restore a more rural character to parts of the access route. Members were also shown the George Albert Hotel complex, conference facilities, touring caravan site, commercial uses and the former Second World War water tower, which had ecological importance as a bat roost and would be retained. The removal of a telecommunications mast from the site was also noted.

 

The Case Officer explained that the site occupied a relatively elevated position but was generally well contained within the landscape, with limited opportunities for significant public views into the development. Key planning considerations included the loss of existing recreational facilities associated with the clay pigeon shooting ground and motor racing activities, the provision of staff accommodation on site, landscape and visual impacts, ecology, drainage and the overall principle of tourism-related development.

 

Public Participation

Dan Parker (The Head of Motorsport, UK)

He explained that Motorsport, UK was the national body governing for all four -wheel motorsports in the UK. He objected and raised concerns about the proposed application in so far of the loss of material restriction of the Clay Pigeon Raceway which is an established motorsport venue. Pigeon Raceway is not simply an area of land with an alternative potential use. It is a long-established Motorsport carting circuit with significant community and heritage value. The venue has played an important role in British carting for decades and has supported the development of competitors, officials, volunteers, clubs and all their families across the Southwest and far beyond. Our circuits of this type are very specialist sporting facilities, and they are not easy or impossible to replace. They require the right layout of land and infrastructure, all of which is licenced by Motorsports UK.  Motorsports UK has around 35 venues licensed in the UK for use and only around 6 or 7 of these which can host the type of events Clay Pigeon Raceway hosts. He explained that if a venue like the Clay Pigeon is lost, there may not be another equivalent facility could be replicated elsewhere. An alternative premises had been highlighted as a possible alternative venue but has significant challenges with planning and use and would become very difficult for the pathway in carting to operate. Carting is the entry point into motorsports which means predominately it is for young people, where they learn development and engineering and volunteering for the community is actively apart of carting. The sport would simply not cope with just one venue in the Southwest of the Country. Clay Pigeon has made a significant impact in the carting world. All of today’s F1 drivers on the grid all took part in carting, at Clay Pigeon Raceway, not just once but for a number of times during their training. Once the facilities are lost, they are rarely replaced. Silverstone has just built a cart track, and that is the first cart track that has been built in the UK for 35 years. The nearest venue is 1 hour away and has significant challenges and has already cancelled events this year because of the difficulties they have with planning.

 

Lucy Hodge

She explained that the village of Batcombe was less than a mile away from the site and stated that this was the wrong scale of development in the wrong place, with no realistic access to public transport. She said it was an entirely car-based development, at a scale that would bring unprecedented rural through-traffic and new hazards to the A37. She argued that 226 lodges, together with staff facilities, were equivalent to bringing a medium-sized village to this unsustainable location. She questioned whether the Planning Inspectorate would accept this, given the scant consideration of highway impacts.

 

In terms of car dependency, she explained that the nearest public bus stop was over 8 km away. Cycling from the site was challenging, even for confident cyclists. Access to Dorset’s attractions beyond local hiking would require a car. In relation to vehicle numbers on changeover days, she asked members to imagine over 226 cars arriving and 226 leaving, in addition to vehicles for staff, maintenance, cleaning and online food deliveries, all travelling through the rural road network connected to the A37.

 

She informed the Committee that the applicant’s own Transport Assessment acknowledged 470 two-way vehicle trips per day on weekdays, increasing to 558 at weekends. She stated that visitors would use local villages to avoid traffic and to access local attractions. She argued that the highway response was lacking and called into question whether a safe decision could be made. She asked why independent transport modelling had not been used.

 

She explained that the applicant’s assessment had overestimated existing trips at more than 884 per day. She stated that this misleading figure had formed the basis for a claimed reduction in traffic movements. She added that development creep had largely been permitted during the 1970s and that traffic would be significantly increased as a result of the proposal.

 

She welcomed the Council’s commitment to active travel and noted that rural communities were choosing to walk and cycle where they were able to do so. She argued that ignoring the dangerous impacts on rural road networks flew in the face of residents’ best efforts.

 

She urged members to vote for a deferral to allow a site visit to take place. She stated that developer contributions through a Section 106 agreement should be sought and that the closure of accesses should be enforced. She concluded that there was no public interest case for the development, as the small number of jobs created was outweighed by the significant negative impacts. She asked the Committee to refuse the application for the following reasons: overdevelopment, non-compliance with Section 9 of the NPPF relating to sustainable transport, and non-compliance with Policy COM7.

 

Jonathan Bird (to speak on behalf of Andrew Graham) did not attend the meeting.

 

Nick Sansom

He addressed the Committee in support of the application. He explained that he had worked with the business since 2009 and had been closely involved in the development and modernisation of its operations. He stated that the business had evolved significantly over recent years and had adapted to changing circumstances while responding to the needs and concerns of the local community.

 

He highlighted the closure of the former scrapyard operation and its redevelopment as Wardon Hill Business Park, which now accommodated a number of rural businesses providing services to the local area. He further explained that the former Southern Counties Shooting Ground had ceased operation following concerns from local residents and holiday park users regarding noise and environmental impacts, as it was considered no longer appropriate within the AONB.

 

Mr Sansom advised that a significant investment had been made in the George Albert Hotel in 2009, which had become an important local employer. Although the hotel had been adversely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, he stated that it was steadily recovering and continued to provide employment opportunities.

In relation to the proposal, he stated that the George Albert Lodge Project would support the recovery of the hospitality business while providing a sustainable long-term use for the brownfield site. He stated that the development would create employment opportunities, attract visitors, and support the wider rural economy through tourism.

 

He advised that the proposal would also address existing concerns by removing the Clay Pigeon Raceway as part of a phased development, thereby reducing noise impacts. He further noted that two existing highway access points would be closed, preventing traffic from using Wardon Hill Road to the north, a measure which he stated had been welcomed by the Highway Authority.

 

The Committee was informed that the site was already established as a tourism and leisure destination and that the proposal would redevelop existing facilities to provide a small convenience store, takeaway and café-restaurant. He added that the existing emporium and gun centre would be offered relocation to Wardon Hill Business Park.

In conclusion, Mr Sansom stated that the development was estimated to generate between £4.6 million and £5.8 million of economic activity annually and would provide long-term economic benefits while respecting the character of the surrounding area. He urged the Committee to support the application.

 

Bradley Newton

He addressed the Committee in support of the application. He advised that he had a personal connection to the site, explaining that his grandfather had been one of the former owners of the Southern Counties Shooting Ground before it was acquired by Barry Crook in the mid-1980s.

 

He stated that Wardon Hill had historically accommodated a diverse range of businesses and uses and had continually adapted over time. However, he considered that the site now required a new long-term vision that would respect its surroundings while making use of its location.

 

Mr Newton explained that noise impacts had been a recurring challenge for the site. He stated that the former shooting ground and kart track had generated noise which had conflicted with the interests of nearby businesses, residents and visitors. In his view, these constraints had limited the site's ability to evolve and had restricted opportunities for other uses.

 

He advised that the George Albert Lodge Park proposal presented an opportunity to address these historic issues and create a more balanced and sustainable future for the site. He stated that the development had been designed to sit sympathetically within the landscape, with landscaping and planting intended to integrate the scheme into the countryside.

 

The Committee was informed that the South West remained a highly attractive visitor destination, with the Jurassic Coast drawing domestic and international tourists. Mr Newton argued that tourism provided significant economic benefits through supporting local businesses, creating employment and generating opportunities for local communities.

 

By way of example, he referred to The Mole Resort in Devon, which had developed into a tourism destination featuring eco-lodges and hospitality facilities. He suggested that the proposal offered an opportunity to attract a different type of visitor seeking high-quality countryside accommodation and experiences, combined with access to the facilities and hospitality offered by the George Albert Hotel and the wider development.

 

Mr Newton stated that the proposal was about creating a visitor experience that would showcase Dorset’s rural heritage, landscapes, communities and culture. He concluded that the development would bring investment to the area, create employment opportunities and provide a sustainable future for the site. In his view, the scheme should be regarded as an opportunity to deliver a high-quality tourism destination that would enhance the area and encourage repeat visits whilst respecting the character of Dorset.

 

Barry Crook (Owner of the George Albert Hotel, Wardon Hill Caravan Park, the Clay Pigeon Kart Track and Southern Counties Shooting)

 

He addressed the Committee in support of the application. He explained that he had invested in excess of £6 million in the development of the George Albert Hotel and a further £1 million in the clubhouse facilities. He stated that it had become increasingly apparent that, in order for the businesses to remain sustainable, continue to grow, and provide long-term security, difficult business decisions were sometimes necessary.

 

Mr Crook advised that the kart track was constraining the growth and operation of both the caravan park and the hotel and would therefore need to close to facilitate the proposed lodge development. He reassured the Committee that staff affected by the closure of the kart circuit would be offered alternative employment opportunities within the wider business.

 

He stated that successful businesses needed to evolve and adapt to changing circumstances and that, where one part of a business restricted the growth and sustainability of the wider operation, difficult decisions had to be taken. He considered that the closure of the karting business would allow other parts of the enterprise to expand, safeguard existing jobs, and create new opportunities.

The Committee was informed that the proposed lodge development had the potential to create up to 160 jobs within the local community, providing employment opportunities for local people and supporting the wider economy.

 

Mr Crook stated that his ambition had always been to create a lasting legacy for future generations through successful businesses that would benefit both his family and the wider local community. He urged the Committee to support the application.

 

Jonathan Moore Lambe (Agent Lambe Planning and Design)

He addressed the Committee in support of the application and advised that the application site was a previously developed brownfield site with a long history of development, including a motor racing circuit, static caravan park, shooting ground and, historically, a military hospital. He emphasised that the site did not comprise agricultural land.

 

Mr Lambe stated that the existing motor racing circuit generated significant noise and was not compatible with the AONB location, nearby residents or the George Albert Hotel, where guests expected a peaceful environment. He also considered the existing caravans to be highly visible, visually harmful, dated and of poor quality.

He explained that up to 60 caravans were already permitted on the site and that the proposal sought an increase in accommodation provision across a substantially larger area. He advised that the number of lodges had been reduced by 27% during the application process and that the proposed separation distances between lodges would significantly exceed the required standards, ranging from 30 to 50 feet compared with the minimum requirement of 20 feet.

 

The Committee was informed that the proposal represented an opportunity to replace existing uses with a high-quality holiday park incorporating lodges finished in muted environmental colours. He highlighted that the scheme would provide six dedicated recreation areas connected by informal paths and that more than five acres of recreation space would be available, including over 6.5 acres of open space within the north-west corner of the site.

 

Mr Lambe advised that the applicant had worked closely with the Local Planning Authority and statutory consultees over a six-year period to address identified issues. As a result, he stated that no objections had been received from the Highway Authority, the Environment Agency or other statutory consultees. He further explained that a new package treatment plant would deliver a significant improvement over the existing drainage arrangements and that an Environmental Permit for discharge had been approved by the Environment Agency.

He reported that the Dorset National Landscape Team supported the proposals and considered the development to be a rare opportunity to provide a new tourist facility within the AONB on previously developed land whilst removing features that detracted from the landscape.

 

Mr Lambe stated that the site was broadly level and benefitted from substantial screening by existing berms, mature hedgerows and tree cover, resulting in very limited views into the site. He advised that all existing boundary trees and hedgerows would be retained and supplemented by additional planting and landscape buffers.

In conclusion, he argued that the proposal would upgrade an existing tourism site to provide higher-quality accommodation, contribute to the local economy and support other local businesses and attractions. He considered that the proposal represented a unique opportunity to secure significant planning and environmental benefits, improve the appearance of the site and provide a high-quality tourism facility. He stated that the scheme accorded with planning policy and asked the Committee to support the officer recommendation to grant planning permission.

 

Cllr Christopher J Cook (High Stoy Parish Council)

He referred to Chapter 8 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which promotes healthy and safe communities, and argued that consideration should be given primarily to the established rural community of permanent residents living and working in the area. He expressed the view that the proposed holiday accommodation would serve a transient population with limited connection to the local community.

 

He questioned the economic benefits claimed for the proposal, stating that insufficient account had been taken of potential job losses associated with existing businesses on the site and the possible displacement of current occupiers of mobile homes within the park.

 

The speaker referred to information within the planning documentation which stated that the site was unsuitable for settlement due to its remote location, separation from existing settlements and high environmental value. He argued that the proposal would effectively create a substantial quasi-residential development in an unsustainable location. In his view, the scale of the development would be significantly larger than nearby settlements and would place additional pressure on the A37 and the surrounding local road network.

 

He contended that the proposal failed to satisfy the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework and stated that insufficient evidence had been provided to demonstrate a realistic demand for a five-star holiday park of the proposed scale in this location, which was some distance from the coast and major tourist attractions.

 

He raised that the development would be entirely car-dependent and would result in increased traffic movements on local roads, with potential impacts on road safety for motorists, pedestrians and cyclists.

 

He also raised concerns regarding highway safety, stating that the Transport Assessment had not adequately addressed the nature of the site's access onto the A37. He described the entrance and exit as being located on a bend in the road and considered it to be a potentially dangerous access point, noting that a police safety camera was regularly positioned in the vicinity.

 

Members questions and comments

• Members sought clarification regarding car parking provision, noting the large existing car park serving the site. Concerns were raised about how visitors would access the lodges and whether pedestrian routes would require movement through the main car park. It was suggested that the layout and access arrangements required further consideration. Questions were also raised regarding waste collection arrangements and the lack of information within the application relating to public transport accessibility. Some Members considered that, if approved, contributions towards public transport improvements should be explored.

·       Concerns were expressed regarding the removal of the telecommunications mast and the potential impact this could have on telecommunications infrastructure serving local villages and the site's connectivity.

·       Members commented that the officer report had made a strong case that the proposal could result in a net improvement to the National Landscape through the removal of existing uses. However, concerns were raised regarding the potential visual impact of lighting within the AONB. Members sought clarification on the extent of controls available through conditions, including restrictions on external lighting associated with the lodges, and requested further information regarding landscaping proposals and berm treatments.

·       One Member stated that they had not identified any clear planning grounds upon which the application could be refused.

·       Several Members expressed concerns regarding the adequacy of information relating to car parking provision, site access and circulation, particularly during periods of peak hotel activity. It was suggested that the application be deferred to allow further details on these matters to be provided.

·       Concerns were also raised regarding whether the existing car park would be sufficient to accommodate hotel users, lodge visitors and staff. One Member suggested that a further deferral should be considered until full details of parking arrangements were available.

·       Members commented on the proposed loss of the racing circuit. While acknowledging that the site was remote and potentially well-suited to such a use, concerns were raised about the loss of a longstanding recreational facility and the contribution it made to motorsport activities.

·       Questions were asked regarding the layout of the development, including the location of the reception area and the practical arrangements for visitors checking in before accessing their lodges.

·       Some Members expressed concerns about the overall visitor experience and site layout. It was noted that while the site would be screened from external views, the development should also provide an attractive environment for visitors within the site itself. Concerns were raised that recreation and nature areas appeared isolated and that the internal layout could be more user-friendly. The value of the existing race track as a recreational, engineering and skills-based facility was also highlighted.

·       Other Members considered that there were no material planning reasons to refuse the application and that outstanding matters relating to layout and operation could be addressed by planning conditions.

·       It was also noted that the continuation of the racing circuit was ultimately a business matter and not a planning consideration for the Committee.

In response to Members’ questions, officers provided the following clarifications:

• Officers advised that there was currently no dedicated parking provision associated with the existing facilities other than the main parking area located to the west of the George Albert Hotel. The area proposed for staff accommodation currently formed part of the larger hotel car park.
• It was confirmed that waste collection on the site was undertaken by a private contractor and that this arrangement would continue should the development proceed.
• In relation to parking provision, officers acknowledged Members’ concerns and advised that a planning condition could be imposed requiring the submission and approval of detailed parking arrangements.
• With regard to public transport, officers explained that there was a request for a bus stop to serve the site; however, existing bus routes generally served nearby villages rather than stopping directly at the site access. Whilst improvements to bus stop infrastructure could potentially be secured, the Local Planning Authority could not control whether bus operators would run services to or utilise such a stop.
• Officers advised that the telecommunications mast currently located on the site were redundant. A separate proposal for a replacement mast at an alternative location was progressing and it was not anticipated that the removal of the existing mast would adversely affect telecommunications provision.
• Responding to concerns regarding lighting and landscape impacts, officers noted that these matters had been raised by the Dorset National Landscape Team during consultation. A revised lighting strategy had subsequently been prepared, and a condition was proposed requiring the submission and approval of a detailed lighting scheme. Officers advised that the strategy included measures such as low-energy lighting and the switching off of external lighting between 11.00 pm and dawn, where appropriate.
• Officers confirmed that a number of the existing internal earth berms would be removed as part of the development, although landscape mitigation and planting proposals formed part of the scheme.
• It was confirmed that approximately 250 parking spaces were available within the main hotel parking area.
• In respect of pedestrian access, officers advised that there was a route running along the front of the hotel; however, this route did not continue throughout the site and further details of pedestrian movement and crossing points would be required.
• Officers also confirmed that electricity for the development would be supplied from the adjacent solar farm.

 

A vote was taken to extend the meeting beyond 3 hours. The Vote was CARRIED and the meeting was extended.

 

Cllr Cooper proposed to Defer the Application, seconded by Cllr Ridout.

 

The motion to defer the application was NOT CARRIED.

 

A vote to approve the application was proposed by Cllr Major, seconded by Cllr Jespersen.

 

Hannah Smith Clarified that if the vote was successful the proposal would be approved with the following conditions:

 

1. A condition that requires details for marking out of the car park and access through it.

 

2. A condition to require a maintenance plan for the duration of the development and the removal of the lodges if the use was permanently deceased.

 

3. A revised condition 35 Prior to first use of the holiday park, final floor plans for the holiday park facilities building (the former racetrack clubhouse) shall have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the facilities shall be provided on site and made available for use prior to occupation of the holiday units hereby approved.

 

Reason: For the avoidance of doubt and to ensure facilities are made available to support the use as a holiday park.

 

 

Having had the opportunity to discuss the merits of the application and an understanding of all this entailed; having considered the officer’s report and presentation; the written representatives; and what they had heard at the meeting, a motion to APPROVE the officer’s recommendation to GRANT planning permission as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Major, and seconded by Cllr Jespersen.

 

Decision: To grant planning permission subject to the conditions set out in the appendix to these minutes.