PAPER C
REPORT OF THE HEAD OF PLANNING SERVICES
TCP/21907/E – P/01220/03 Single storey building to provide bar and dining area with ancillary kitchen/toilet facilities/implement store, Chale Bay Farm, Military Road, Chale, Ventnor
Officer: Mr A Pegram Tel: (01983) 823566
Summary
To
consider implications of granting planning permission for development
contrary to Officers’ recommendation
and policies of the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan.
Background
This application was considered at the meeting of the Development Control Committee held on Tuesday 4 November 2003 when Members resolved that they wished to grant conditional planning permission.
My understanding is that, whilst the application site is located outside the development boundaries defined on the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan, within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Heritage Coast, Members considered that planning permission could exceptionally be permitted on grounds that the development would be beneficial to tourism and the local economy and that the building was of superior design to that previously approved and would not detract from the landscape character of the area.
This decision was contrary to the officer’s recommendation and the Head of Planning Services invoked the “cooling off” period to enable officers to prepare a report commenting on the policy implications and possible precedent effect of the decision and to set out appropriate conditions should Members wish to adhere to the decision taken on 4 November 2003. A copy of the report is attached as an appendix and has been updated to include additional correspondence received.
Financial Implications
None.
Options
1. To adhere to the decision taken on 4 November 2003 and grant conditional planning permission.
2. To refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report attached to this report as an appendix.
Conclusion
I consider that the determining factor with regard to this application is whether the proposal conforms with the planning policies for the area, as set out in the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. The site lies outside the development envelope boundaries as defined in the plan, with a landscape designated as an AONB and Heritage Coast. Members are reminded of the advice contained in the Town and Country Planning Act:
“Where an adopted or approved development plan contains relevant policies, Section 54A requires that an application for planning permission or an appeal should be determined in accordance with the Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise” (PPG1 – General Policy and Principles)
Having regard to the location of the site, outside the of any development boundary, within an area designated for landscape value, those policies of the Unitary Development Plan to be of particular relevance to the current proposal areas follows:
S10 – In areas of designated or defined scientific, nature conservation, archaeological, historical or landscape value, development will be permitted only if it will conserve or enhance the features of special character of these areas.
G1 – Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages
G5 – Development Outside Defined Settlements
C2 – Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
C4 – Heritage Coast
In accordance with Policy G1 (Development Envelopes for Towns and Villages) development will be expected to be located within settlements defined in the Plan by the development envelopes. Land outside these boundaries is considered to be countryside where development, other than exceptions specified in other policies or proposals, will be resisted.
In accordance with Policy G5, outside defined settlements, development may exceptionally be permitted where it requires a rural location, is of benefit to the rural economy, is well designed and landscaped, is of an appropriate scale and falls within one or more of the categories detailed within the policy. These categories include an appropriate rural tourism development, small-scale development ancillary to existing housing, industrial, commercial, tourist, recreational or community development and appropriate small-scale development to create or sustain rural employment. However, the policy also sets out circumstances where such development will not be permitted, including where it would reduce the quality and character of the landscape or reduce the value of the countryside and coast as a sporting and recreational use.
The requirement to safeguard the character of the area, designated for its landscape value is also emphasised by Policy C2 of the plan. In accordance with this policy, proposals will only be approved where they do not have a detrimental impact on the landscape and:
· meet a proven national need where there are no alternative sites; or
· specifically involve the maintenance or development of agriculture, horticulture or forestry and/or be for the benefit of the rural economy and the people who live there; or
· involves the low key improvement of an area used for informal leisure and recreation; or
· reduce the impact of, or upgrade an existing development; or
· are within a defined development envelope.
In accordance with Policy C4 (Heritage Coast) development will only be permitted where it protects and enhances the unspoilt and undeveloped character of the coast. Approvals will be granted for development which facilitates improved public access and enjoyment of the Heritage Coast for informal open-air recreation.
Notwithstanding fact that the site is located outside any defined settlement where further development would be resisted, other than that which may exceptionally be permitted in accordance with the policies, Members will note that, with the exception of Policy G1, the above policies all place an emphasis on ensuring that development does not have a detrimental impact on the landscape quality of the area. In particular, Members are reminded that, in accordance with Part 4 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, any Authority exercising or performing any function in relation to, or so as to affect, land within the designated area, must have regard to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the AONB. In this instance, it is considered that current proposal would clearly conflict with established policies which seek to protect the landscape character of the area.
Whilst permission has previously been granted on this site for a building of similar proportions to that proposed, the current proposal involves a use which would attract additional impacts, both in terms of associated activities and physical impact. In this respect, additional impacts would arise through traffic generation, parked vehicles etc. In particular, following consultations with the Architectural Liaison Officer and, having regard to the nature of the proposal and isolated location of the site, it is considered that the development would be likely to create opportunities for crime. In order to reduce such opportunities, the Architectural Liaison Officer suggests that certain measures should be employed/implemented, including the provision of lighting to the external areas of the facility. However, the site is located in an area of countryside and coastline where there is little or no illumination and I am of the opinion that the provision of such lighting would have a significant and adverse impact on the locality.
Following further consultations with the AONB Officer further comments have been received as follows:
“The location of this site within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and Heritage Coast denotes its high national landscape value. The site is outside of any development envelope and is in an exposed and open position on the seaward side of Military Road. This prominent rural location with few adjacent buildings enables the plot to be seen from long distances on the flat coastal plain to the northwest and from high ground such as St Catherines Hill to the southeast.
CPRE in their survey of light pollution in the southeast region of England, classify the area around Chale and Atherfield as “dark”, an important part of the remaining 1% of the southeast region’s resource. The lack of light pollution has an urbanising influence and the ability to experience “dark skies” is a key characteristic of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The Crime and Disorder Architectural Liaison Officer provides a detailed assessment of the potential risks associated with such development in this location and recommends lighting; other security measures to ensure the site is safe; and that landscaping must not compromise surveillance or any light source. We are particularly concerned at the potential impact that this will have on the special character of the AONB and Heritage Coast if this application is approved with the need to incorporate such measures.
In addition to our earlier concerns regarding increased development and activities associated with the proposed use of this site and taking all of the above factors into account, we can see no solution to providing the required safety measures for the site and conserving and enhancing the special character of the Heritage Coast and AONB.”
In terms of general locational criteria, the site is clearly outside of any settlement defined by the development boundaries within the Unitary Development Plan. In this instance, the proposal involves the provision of a building which is not required solely for purposes ancillary to the adjacent holiday accommodation premises and, whilst it may be argued that the facility would be used by tourists and would be likely to generate employment to the benefit of the local economy, I do not consider that the proposal represents development which may exceptionally be permitted in accordance with Policy G5 or that these factors outweigh the fundamental policy objection to the proposal. Therefore, approval of the planning application without any overriding justification would be a departure from the Unitary Development Plan and would conflict with the requirements of Section 54A of the Act.
During the debate at the Development Control Committee, the use of the surrounding land was questioned. Applicant’s agent has confirmed in writing that the land surrounding the application site is let to a local farmer and is used for agricultural purposes. I am satisfied that the current proposal will not prejudice the continued use of the land for agricultural purposes.
My recommendation was based solely on policy grounds on the basis that the proposal conflicts with the Isle of Wight Unitary Development Plan. Notwithstanding the advice contained in this report, should Members be minded to maintain their position I consider that every attempt should be made to minimise the impact of the proposal on the landscape and I would strongly recommend that consideration is given to deferring the application to enable Officers to carry out negotiations with an aim to improving the design and overall appearance of the building and to secure a scheme which reflects the rural setting of this site. Furthermore, I attach as an appendix a list of suggested conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
To
refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the report attached to
this report as an appendix.
ANDREW ASHCROFT
Head of Planning Services