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.