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.

The Lead Project Officer presented the application with the aid of plans, aerial photographs and visualisations. Members were shown the application site within Weymouth Bay Holiday Park and were advised of its relationship to nearby heritage and environmental designations, including the Dorset National Landscape and the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site.  

 

The proposal sought full planning permission for 241 holiday caravans across four areas of the site, together with associated infrastructure including access roads, footpaths, landscaping, sustainable drainage measures, an attenuation basin, the relocation of five existing caravans and the removal of a telecommunications mast. Access would be provided from the existing holiday park. 

 

Members were informed that the principle of development was considered acceptable under Policy ECON7, which supported the expansion of existing holiday parks. An Environmental Impact Assessment had been undertaken and identified a range of impacts together with mitigation measures. 

 

The Officer explained that the principal considerations were landscape and visual impact, effects on the Jurassic Coast World Heritage Site and heritage assets, ecology, flood risk, highways and neighbouring amenity. Whilst the development would introduce additional built form into the landscape and result in a degree of harm to landscape character, the impact was assessed as being at the lower end of the scale and would reduce over time as the proposed landscaping matured. A degree of less than substantial harm to the setting of heritage assets and the World Heritage Site was also identified. 

 

Ecological impacts, including habitat loss and potential recreational pressure on designated sites, were considered capable of mitigation through habitat creation, wildlife corridor measures, designated walking routes and other ecological enhancements. Flood risk and drainage matters were also considered acceptable, subject to mitigation and the proposed drainage strategy. 

 

Members were advised that the Highway Authority had raised no objection, subject to conditions and contributions towards local transport improvements. The proposal would alter the outlook from some neighbouring properties, particularly those at Forehill Close, but was not considered to result in unacceptable harm to residential amenity. 

 

In assessing the planning balance, the Officer noted that no statutory consultees had objected to the application. Significant weight was afforded to the economic benefits of the proposal, including investment, employment opportunities, support for the tourism economy and improvements to public access and sustainable transport infrastructure. 

 

The Officer concluded that, on balance, the benefits of the scheme outweighed the identified harms and recommended that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions set out in the officer's report. 

 

 

Public Participation 

 

Mr J Skinner’s statement was read out by the Local Ward Member, who was unable to attend and objected to the application. He raised concerns regarding the impact of additional caravans on neighbouring properties, including loss of privacy, outlook and residential amenity, as well as increased noise, light pollution and traffic. Concerns were also expressed regarding residents’ wellbeing, safety, and potential impacts on local wildlife. He urged the Committee to refuse the application. 

 

Helen Ashby-Ridgway, speaking as agent, supported the application. She stated that the proposal had been carefully developed to address the sensitivities of the site and noted that the application was recommended for approval, with no objections from consultees. She highlighted the economic benefits of the scheme, including the creation of additional jobs and support for the tourism sector in Weymouth. Reference was made to community and environmental benefits, including the long-term protection and enhancement of a wildlife corridor, improvements to the site setting, acceptable access arrangements, and a sensitive lighting scheme. She concluded that the benefits of the development were not outweighed by any adverse impacts. 

 

Councillor L O’Leary, as Local Ward Member, thanked Members for attending the site visit. He highlighted the proximity of the proposed development to neighbouring dwellings and the resulting day-to-day impact on residents, noting that some properties would directly overlook the new area. Concerns were raised regarding the busy nature of the road, parking arrangements and the location of a nearby bus stop. He urged Members to refuse the application based on the concerns that had been raised. 

 

Councillor Dickenson, as Local Ward Member, thanked Members for attending the site visit and stated that it had been helpful in understanding the relationship between the site and neighbouring properties. He noted that the existing dwellings had been built to overlook the field and expressed concern about the significant impact the development would have on residents’ lives. He urged the applicant to reconsider or reduce the scale of the proposal to lessen its impact on neighbouring properties and asked Members to give due weight to residents’ concerns when determining the application. 

 

Cllr Peter Dickenson and Cllr Louie O’Leary left the room at 11:16 

 

Members questions and comments 

• Sought clarification on the proposed landscaping scheme, including whether the existing hedgerows in the upper part of the site would be enhanced and the anticipated timescale for hedgerows and trees to establish sufficiently to provide effective screening of the caravans. 

• Members queried how any archaeological discoveries made during development would be monitored and managed to ensure appropriate protection measures were implemented. 

• Emphasised the importance of maintaining public rights of way and sought assurance that existing walking routes would remain accessible and unrestricted. 

• Members raised questions regarding site security and noted that the development would create additional employment opportunities. It was also acknowledged that existing residents had a right to enjoy their homes and quality of life, and that these considerations should be considered. 

• Members raised concerns regarding the potential increase in noise arising from the development and sought clarification on whether a noise assessment had been undertaken and what mitigation measures had been considered. 

• Requested photographs taken from the site visit viewpoint and noted concerns that parts of the development would be located on rising ground. Concerns were expressed that the scale of the proposal was excessive for the site. 

• Clarification was sought regarding the provision of dog waste bins, including the arrangements for their ongoing maintenance and emptying by the applicant. 

• Concerns were raised regarding fire risk, noting that no comments had been received from the Fire Service. It was suggested that caravan developments could increase fire risk, particularly given the proximity of neighbouring residential properties. 

• Members praised the site visit

• the Case Officer was thanked for the comprehensive report. 

• Clarification was sought regarding the extent of the development located within the designated area referred to in the officer's presentation. 

• Queried whether the caravans closest to neighbouring residential properties could be repositioned to reduce visual intrusion and impacts on residential amenity. 

• Members welcomed the proposed enhancement to the nearby bus stop but noted that no lay-by was proposed. Clarification was sought as to whether the Highway Authority had assessed the implications of buses stopping on the carriageway, particularly during the peak summer season. 

• Cllr B Bawden suggested the removal of one caravan pitch to facilitate a wider landscaping buffer, allowing for additional planting to enhance screening of the development and assist in mitigating potential noise impacts on neighbouring properties 

• Cllr S Christopher referred to the comments made by the Local Ward Members and stated that, having attended the site visit, concerns remained regarding the cumulative scale of development in the area. It was considered that the proposal would result in unacceptable impacts on neighbouring properties and would have an overall negative effect on the locality. 

• It was noted that the site sat within a natural hollow and that views of the development would largely be limited to higher ground. It was acknowledged that there were no objections from statutory consultees. However, concerns were expressed regarding the wider impact on nearby residents, notwithstanding the area's good public accessibility. 

• One Member stated that they would support the removal of Area G from the proposal, citing concerns relating to environmental impacts, flood risk, effects on the wildlife corridor, and the impact on neighbouring residents. 

• While recognising the merits of the proposed amendment, Cllr K Wheller considered that greater weight should be given to the site's designation and significance as part of the World Heritage Site. Reference was made to the relevant section of the officer's report, and it was argued that the benefits of the additional caravans did not outweigh the importance of protecting the World Heritage Site designation. 

 

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 as recommended, was proposed by Cllr Belinda Bawden, and seconded by Cllr David Northam, subject to conditions set out in the officer report, subject to the additional condition that the caravan shown in the identified location shall not be sited in that position and that planting be extended on the site. As well as the amendment to Condition 11 to secure the extension of planting and additional planting within Area G, and to amend Condition 26 to provide that the number shall be no more than 240.   

 

 

Decision: To grant for the reasons set out in Section 17 of the officer’s report, subject to the additional condition that the caravan shown in the identified location shall not be sited in that position and that planting be extended on the site. As well as the amendment to Condition 11 to secure the extension of planting and additional planting within Area G, and to amend Condition 26 to provide that the number shall be no more than 240, with the final wording to be agreed under delegated powers, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.  

 

 

Cllr Louie O’Leary and Cllr Peter Dickenson returned at 12:28