Agenda item

Removal of a telecommunications mast and associated structures and installation of bases for the siting of static holiday caravans with decking and associated access, landscaping, drainage and other related infrastructure works.

Cllr Northam returned to the Council Chamber at 13:47.

 

The Lead Project Officer presented the application and identified the site location on a map of the area. Members were shown the extent of Weymouth Bay Holiday Park, with the application site outlined in red. An Ordnance Survey map was displayed identifying nearby heritage assets, including the Grade II* listed St John’s Church and the Scheduled Monument comprising the remains of a Roman Temple. Contour mapping was shown, demonstrating that the site was separated from the sea by a rise in levels. It was noted that the Dorset National Landscape lay to the north of the site, while the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site was located to the east, although the application site itself did not fall within the World Heritage Site. The nearby Isle of Portland Special Area of Conservation and Site of Special Scientific Interest were also identified.

 

A bird’s-eye view of the existing holiday park was shown from the south, illustrating the caravans already present on the site. Members were advised that part of the application area currently comprised grassland used for informal walking. Photographs of the site showed scrubby grassland with a mixture of worn footpaths and marshy ground.

 

It was explained that the proposal sought full planning permission for 241 holiday caravans across four separate areas of the site, together with associated decking, the relocation of five existing static caravans and supporting infrastructure. This infrastructure included sustainable drainage measures, an attenuation basin, footpaths, access roads, hard and soft landscaping works and the removal of an existing telecommunications mast. The accommodation would operate seasonally from March to January. Plans were displayed showing the four development areas and the River Jordan running through the site towards the sea. A link road from the existing holiday park would provide access to the new areas.

 

Further details of the proposal were presented, including the use of grey and brown external finishes for the caravans to reduce their visual prominence within the landscape. Photographs of typical caravans, including veranda areas, were shown. A typical cross-section of the site illustrated the relatively flat nature of the land. Members were also shown the proposed landscaping strategy, which included extensive structural planting intended to soften views of the development. Additional landscaping would be provided throughout the site, including planting between caravans to reduce their visual impact.

 

It was advised that site access had been improved to prevent vehicles queuing on Preston Road. The site was well connected by existing bus routes and a network of footpaths. A number of permissive walking routes were proposed within the development and adjoining open spaces, together with dog waste bins positioned along the paths.

 

The key planning issues were then summarised. The principle of development was considered acceptable, with Local Plan Policy ECON7 generally supporting the expansion of existing holiday parks. An Environmental Statement had accompanied the application due to the nature and scale of the proposal. The Environmental Statement identified a range of potential adverse impacts but also set out a comprehensive package of mitigation measures.

 

In relation to landscape and visual impact, it was explained that a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment had been submitted. Twenty-two viewpoints had been agreed, including views from elevated locations within the National Landscape and viewpoints looking towards it. It was noted that the development would often be more visible from longer-distance viewpoints than from locations immediately surrounding the site. Members were shown a selection of representative viewpoints demonstrating the proposal at its most prominent. These visualisations illustrated the effect of the proposed landscaping over time. At several viewpoints the caravans would be highly visible in the first year following construction, but by year eight the planting would begin to provide screening and, by year fifteen, the development would be substantially screened by maturing woodland and landscaping. While the development would introduce visible built form into the landscape and would therefore result in recognisable landscape harm, this harm was assessed as being at the lower end of the scale and only partially compliant with policy. It was advised that this impact would need to be weighed against the benefits of the scheme.

 

The impact on the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site was also considered. Although the proposal would not directly harm the World Heritage Site, it would reduce the sense of openness and tranquillity experienced in some views. This harm was likewise assessed as being at the lower end of the scale of less than substantial harm.

 

Heritage impacts were also addressed. Archaeological investigations had been undertaken on the site through a programme of trial trenching. The proposals included enhancements to the setting of St John’s Church through improvements along the church boundary and the relocation of three caravans away from the immediate area. Whilst these measures were beneficial, it was concluded that a degree of harm to the setting of nearby heritage assets would remain.

 

Ecological matters were considered in detail. Increased use of the nearby Special Area of Conservation had the potential to affect wildlife through recreational pressure. Natural England had agreed that designated dog walking routes and the provision of dog waste bins would assist in mitigating these impacts. It was explained that there would be some reduction in reedbed habitat associated with the River Jordan, although replacement and compensatory reedbed planting was proposed. Two important wildlife corridors, at Bowleaze Gap and along the River Jordan, would be narrowed by the development. Mitigation measures had been provided to maintain these ecological links. Whilst some habitat loss would occur, it was considered that the proposed mitigation could adequately control the impacts.

 

Flood risk and drainage proposals were also outlined. The sequential test had been applied and, with the mitigation measures proposed, including safe escape routes, the siting of caravans within flood risk areas was considered acceptable. It was concluded that the development could be made safe for its lifetime. An attenuation basin was proposed as part of the drainage strategy and was considered sufficient to address surface water flooding concerns.

Highway matters were discussed, with the Case Officer noting that a significant number of representations had referred to increased traffic, crowded bus stops and existing queues on Preston Road. However, the Highway Authority had not raised any objections subject to conditions securing contributions towards improvements to nearby bus stops and the Beryl Bike scheme.

 

The impact on neighbouring amenity was also assessed. Area G of the development would be located closest to existing dwellings at Forehill Close. An aerial view of the relationship between the proposed development and neighbouring properties was shown. It was acknowledged that residents’ outlook would change substantially, with views that currently extended across open land instead looking towards landscaped woodland associated with the holiday park.

 

Economic benefits were identified as a significant consideration. The scheme was expected to generate approximately £19.6 million of capital investment over a three-year construction period, support the equivalent of 81 full-time jobs during construction, and generate an estimated £17.9 million Gross Value Added across the construction phase. Once operational, the development was anticipated to generate approximately £5.56 million in visitor expenditure each year and support in excess of 100 full-time equivalent jobs.

 

In concluding the planning balance, it was advised that no statutory consultee had objected to the application. Concerns had been raised by the Heritage Officer regarding impacts on the World Heritage Site and nearby heritage assets, and it was recognised that the proposal would result in a change to the character of the area. Whilst the relocation of caravans and proposed mitigation measures would provide some improvements, a degree of harm would remain.

 

The benefits of the scheme were considered to include improved access to public open space, contributions towards bus stop improvements and the Beryl Bike scheme, significant economic benefits and further support for the local tourism economy.

 

Public representation was received in objection to the application from Geoffrey Skinner, Trevor Lewis and Glenn van der Pas. They raised concerns about the application including; an unacceptable impact on neighbouring amenity, particularly to residents on Forehill Close, who would experience loss of privacy and outlook; increased noise, light and traffic pollution impacting existing residents; impact on wildlife in the area and concern about worsening flooding.

 

The representative of the applicant, Andy Bell, spoke in support of the application. He stated that Haven employed over 800 people across three parks in Weymouth and that this development would create more jobs. They recognised the concerns over the scale of the proposal, however noted that an independent assessment demonstrated significant economic benefits to the area and would also benefit the local tourism economy.

 

Cllr O’Leary spoke as one of the local ward members. He expressed concern around area G, which would place a large number of caravans close to a residential cul-de-sac in Forehill Close. In addition, he felt further improvements should be made to road and sewage infrastructure to ensure it could cope with the additional demand.

 

Cllr Dickenson spoke as a local ward member. He stated that the 241 additional caravans would represent a significant change in the character of the area, due to increased traffic, change in the landscape and community impacts. He recognised the economic benefits from the applicant’s assessment, however did not feel that concerns from residents had been appropriately addressed. He suggested that area G be reduced in size to mitigate amenity impacts on neighbouring residents.

 

Cllr O’Leary and Cllr Dickenson left the Council Chamber at 15:00.

 

In response to questions from members, officers provided the following responses:

·       A condition would require a landscape planting scheme to be submitted for approval, so the size of the trees planted could be controlled.

·       Discussions had taken place with the applicant about the size of area G, however the applicant had not reduced the size.

·       The economic figures had not been independently assessed and had been taken from the applicant on face value.

·       There was a distance of 17m between the nearest proposed caravan to dwellings on Forehill Close, which was considered a sufficient separation distance and there was not considered to be any right to a view in planning terms.

·       Weymouth Town Council had initially objected to the application but had since supported the application following re-consultation.

·       Condition 6 required details to be submitted and approved by Dorset Council about any caravans being installed, which would ensure that any replacement caravans would have to meet the desired standard.

 

Cllr Bawden and Cllr Wheller left the meeting at 15:05.

 

One member raised a concern about the visual impact of the development on the National Landscape and its impact on the World Heritage Site.

 

It was proposed by Cllr Monks and seconded by Cllr Taylor, to defer the application to allow the committee to conduct a site visit to Forehill Close and area G, in order to better understand the visual impacts of the scheme.

 

Decision: That the application be deferred to allow members to conduct a site visit.