Site and Location

A substantial tourist site offering static caravans, chalets and support facilities adjoining the northwestern coastal slope, immediately north of South Thorness Farm. Site is divided into two distinct sections, the large static and chalet area to the east with a smaller area of concrete chalets and swimming pool building in the western part of the site, separated from the main area by a touring camping field. Site has established trees on northwestern (coastal) boundary and to the northeast and east, whilst there is open farmland to the south.

Relevant History

Approval granted in 1991 for 223 new and replacement static caravans, 24 semi-detached chalets to be constructed to the east of the perimeter access road running between the existing chalets and swimming pool and the tented and touring camping area and extensions to car park. This was subject to conditions and agreement regarding road improvements and infrastructure provision, triggered by the construction/location of new, rather than replacement units.

Details of Application

Originally submitted for the provision of 67 static caravans, 45 of which were to be located between perimeter the western boundary of the site and the perimeter roadway, and the remaining 22 on the western part of the tented camping field, in the area approved in 1991 for 24 semi-detached chalets.

Following discussions with officers, including the AONB officer, a revised plan has been submitted showing a reduction in the number of chalets to the west of the perimeter road to 42. The units would be grouped around four culs-de-sac off the western side of the road in the areas where the chalets and swimming pool building (all of which would be demolished) are presently located.

Significant new planting is proposed both to the east of the 22 chalets in the tented camping area and on the western boundary and to separate the groups of units around each cul-de-sac in the western section.

A comprehensive landscape plan has been submitted which shows new planting to comprise deciduous trees of selected standard (10-12 cm girth) and semi-mature (20-25 cm girth), mixes of semi-ornamental tall and low growing shrubs and native woodland shrubs trees and trees with shrub under storey, in various locations through the site.

Development Plans Zoning and/or Policy

National policies are contained within PPG 7 (Countryside and the Rural Economy), PPG 21 (Tourism) and PPG 23 (Coastal Development).

The site is identified in the UDP as a site for permanent holiday accommodation and as such, under policy T6, planning applications for the expansion of existing permanent accommodation sites will be approved where they adjoin or are directly related to existing built facilities, do not detract from their surroundings, enhance the environment or improve the visual appearance of the site and that new or replacement units are appropriate in design and appearance and the resulting density of the site does not adversely affect the rural character of the area.

Site is within the AONB and heritage coast and therefore policies C2 (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty) and C4 (Heritage Coast) will apply. Site is near SSSI, SPA, SAC and RAMSAR sites and ancient woodland and therefore policies C8 (Nature Conservation as a Material Consideration), C9, C10 and C11 (Sites of International, National and Local Importance for Nature Conservation) respectively, need to be taken into account. Site was formerly ancient woodland and under policy C12, development which would result in loss or damage to trees, forest or woodland of individual importance or which contribute to the character or amenity of the area will not be approved unless the Council is satisfied there is an overriding need for the development and appropriate replanting is undertaken.

TR7 (Highway Considerations in New Development) indicates new development will be approved where it takes full account of highway safety matters. U11 (infrastructure and Service Provision) requires adequate services to be provided.

Representations

Calbourne Parish Council object on grounds of potential traffic increase, road upgrading needed, visual impact from land and sea and strain on sewerage and water provision. English Nature request additional information. Forestry Commission point out site formerly ancient woodland and semi-natural woodland no tree felling or land disturbance in area covered by tree canopy should be permitted. Discussions with applicants have led to AONB officer expressing concerns at density of site and degree of formality, proposed landscaping and suitable colour of vans is welcomed, and naturalised scheme rather than ornamental planting would be more appropriate and concern is expressed regarding light pollution and that low level lighting would be more appropriate. It is essential that both siting and design are sympathetic to AONB and further mitigation could be sought including a link to the coastal path.

Highways engineer does not anticipate a significant increase in traffic from the proposal.

Right of Way Officer indicates no direct impact but planning gain could be obtained from creation of possibility of link to coastal path.

Principal Planning Policy Officer suggests that replacement in principal is acceptable under tourism policy T3 but that design and impact on AONB assessed against policies D1 and C2 will be critical.

Isle of Wight Tourism originally supported proposal but expressed concern regarding loss of capacity if vans are to be privately owned rather than generally available to the tourism market. Further correspondence and discussion had led to the Head of Tourism suggesting that a conditional approval, requiring an equivalent number of caravans to the existing chalets on site to be kept available for general tourism letting, with a six week occupancy condition. Accommodation over this number should be restricted to holiday use only. This should encourage investment in the holiday park, at the same time protecting the total number of holiday bed spaces available on the Island.

Tree and landscape Officer is satisfied that proposed development and associated planting would be acceptable in landscape terms and would actually enhance the landscape and therefore recommends approval.

One letter received from resident of Harpenden (Herts) who owns adjoining land who has no objection in principle but anticipates problems with increased numbers through the amount of vehicles attracted to the site, problems at junction of Thorness Road and suggests additional screening will be required.

Evaluation

Principle issues in determination of this application are policy, landscape, ecology and access.

With regard to policy, the site is identified as a permanent holiday accommodation site in the UDP and therefore its development will be acceptable under policy T3, on a basis that it will be associated with an existing permanent accommodation site and that the Council is satisfied the development will be retained for holiday use. In this context, the applicants have indicated that whilst they would retain the freehold of the site and, in return for a service charge, undertake necessary maintenance and provision of services and facilities, the individual static vans themselves would be offered for sale to individual owners. This immediately raises concern that such vans might more easily be treated as "second homes" and not made available for general letting to the tourist industry.

The applicants agents have submitted considerable detailed financial and statistical information supporting their view that even privately owned static vans make a significant contribution to the tourist economy of an area. In this particular case, they suggest that the management of the site will undertake to advertise and let such vans for general holiday purposes should the owners wish and that many owners see this as a means of obtaining return on the original outlay for the van itself. Having said that, such vans are clearly principally available to the owner and the owners family, as and when they wish to use them.

There is clearly an area of conflict here and this is why considerable discussions have been undertaken between the Head of Tourism, Planning Officers and the applicants agent. It is agreed that the condition of this part of the site is poor and needs upgrading. The implementation of the 1991 consent was producing permanent buildings, but would not provide level of accommodation which todays holiday maker demands. Therefore, the upgrading of the site by the replacement of existing and proposed chalets by suitable located and coloured static vans is accepted, providing their use for holiday purposes can be assured.

PPG 21 (Tourism) suggests that the imposition of a condition on such accommodation that it should be used for holiday purposes only is an adequate means of control and can be enforced. However, such a condition would not prevent use of vans as second homes as the occupier would always contend that he is holiday. The Head of Tourism has therefore suggested a compromise, by which the 44 static vans which are proposed as replacements for existing or proposed chalets should be retained in the ownership of the applicant, whilst the remaining 22 could be sold to private individuals with a conditional restriction to holiday use. He considers that such a proposal will allow sufficient investment to upgrade the facilities on offer at the site, to the overall benefit of the Islands' tourism economy.

Turning to landscape issues, as indicated above, considerable discussions have been undertaken between the AONB Officer and the applicants Landscape Consultants, and the scheme has been assessed in detail by the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer.

The landscape scheme now submitted involves significant planting which is undertaken with specific purposes in mind. It is proposed that a dense native buffer screen, varying between 15 and 25 metres in width, would be planted to screen views of the proposed static caravans from the east. This would also provide a significant barrier between the static vans proposed for the western part of the touring camping field and the camping field itself.

The western boundary vegetation would be reinforced with native trees and shrubs and shrub planting undertaken to provide visual benefits to the internal arrangement of the park within a relatively short timescale. Tall semi-ornamental shrubs are proposed along the western side of the central access road to provide year round visual interest and screening with an avenue of native trees along the eastern side of that road. Ornamental planting, bollards, lighting and surface treatment will emphasise the entrances to the culs-de-sac which would be separated by significant planting of native woodland shrubs, together with individual oak and ash specimens.

A pedestrian link is proposed from west to east across the site with an adventure playground with appropriate screen planting, in the south western corner.

Whilst the AONB Officer is disappointed with the formality of the proposed layout and the degree of ornamental planting proposed, the Council's Tree and Landscape Officer considers that the planting proposed would not only be acceptable in landscape terms but would actually enhance the landscape. The perimeter planting will be of native species and the proposed density of planting will protect young trees from the effects of salt laden winds. The species reflect the local woodland and will mitigate the appearance of the caravans. The ornamental planting proposed is within these screened areas and relates to the locations of the caravans themselves where ornamental planting may be considered more appropriate.

The applicants have also indicated that they would accept a restriction of the colours of vans proposed to those specified in BS6770 (Exterior Colours for Park Homes(Mobile Homes) Holiday Caravans and Transportable Accommodation Units).These colours are generally blues, greens and browns and would I believe be appropriate for the area. The AONB Officer welcomes the use of such British standard colour restriction.

Overall, I believe that with the landscaping proposed and the colour restriction indicated, the proposals are acceptable within the AONB and that policy C2 and C3 of the UDP will be complied with in that the proposal involves the upgrading of an existing development, without detrimental impact on the landscape or coastline.

English Nature has indicated concerns which arise through the potential for increase in activity at the site. It is clear that the proposal concerns only the western part of the overall site and that, significantly, taking into account the loss of touring camping pitches through the substantial screen planting belt through the centre of the touring field, a significant increase in the number of people visiting the site is not anticipated, although I understand that the site will be open all year round. I do not consider that the proposed development is likely to result in an increased need for coastal defences in the area.

The Forestry Commission points out that the site was, at one time, ancient and semi-natural woodland but the development is proposed in areas either currently developed, or with consent for development. No loss of trees or development within the area covered by tree canopies of the formal woodland area is anticipated.

Overall, although the site is close to site of local, national and international nature conservation interest, bearing in mind its history and the landscaping proposed, which would lead effectively to the created of new habitat, I do not believe there would be any adverse impact on the designated sites. It will I think be necessary to ensure that any lighting within the site is properly controlled; this can be achieved by condition, if consent is granted.

The Parish Council and an adjoining land owner have commented that the access arrangements are inadequate. Members will be aware that improvements have been undertaken at the junction of Thorness Road and Little Whitehouse Road since the application was submitted and there can be no sustainable reason for refusal based on the inadequacy of this junction, particularly bearing in mind that no significant increase in the amount of traffic attracted to the site is anticipated.

Clearly then, this principle will apply also to the condition of the access road itself. Where this is within the overall Thorness Bay Holiday Park, it will be a matter for the site owners to resolve, but I do not believe that there would be additional problems in Thorness Road itself. As the size of the touring camping site has been reduced, it appears to me likely that the number of caravans or trailers attracted to the site will be reduced thus reducing the potential for concern that such vehicles generate.

The views of the Highways Engineer are that the development is acceptable and therefore I see no reason to refuse the application on Highway grounds.

With regard to comments raised by Parish Council concerning strain on water provision and sewerage, information in this respect was provided in connection with a previous application for more comprehensive development on the site. In terms of water provision, this information indicates that the park is served by a 75mm diameter underground main which delivers water to a 250,000 gallon tank situated close to western boundary of the park. This tank operates as a main distribution point for the entire park with a second feed from this tank to two further tanks which lie on the boundary between the touring field and caravan park. These tanks provide additional capacity of approximately 20,630 gallons. Information submitted with the previous application indicates that this capacity is well in excess of that required to serve the site, including the additional units, the subject of this application.

With regard to disposal of foul water, it is understood that this is routed around the park via an underground network of pipes terminating at a sewage treatment plant which lies on the north eastern side of the park. This facility is owned by the operators of the park and maintained by engineers retained by the company who are responsible for advising the applicants on sewage treatment plants across their estate. Information received from a representative of the engineering company indicates that, to his knowledge, the Environment Agency has reported no effluent failures this year. Furthermore, he indicates that there is still more to do to ensure that compliance with the Environment Agency's discharge consent is consistently achieved and a programme of continuous improvement is in hand. In this respect, it is understood that he visited the park during June to consider the likely effect of the proposed development and has subsequently reviewed information on historic occupancy patterns and water consumption to enable him to evaluate the likely impact of the redevelopment on the plant and the scope of improvements that might be required to ensure continued satisfactory performance. At the present time, he is of the opinion that it should be feasible to accommodate the additional loads on the plant under a staged programme of modifications in conjunction with continued careful operation, maintenance and performance monitoring. In any event, it should be noted that proposal includes replacement of existing chalets and facilities at the site and that the caravan bases and landscaping to be carried out encroaches into the adjacent tented and touring area, thereby reducing the capacity for park guests in this particular area. Consequently, I do not consider that the number of guests which can be accommodated at the park as a whole will increase significantly or will result in substantial increase in foul water disposal.

Reason for Recommendation

Taking into account and putting appropriate weight on the issues raised in the evaluation section above, and taking into account approved development at the site, I do not anticipate a significant increase in the number of people likely to visit the site. It will result in the upgrading of a permanent holiday accommodation site identified in the UDP, and providing that the landscape measures submitted are carried out and that the caravans are suitably coloured, impact on the character of the countryside which is designated AONB and Heritage Coast, will be minimised. There should be no greater disturbance to the nearby site of Nature Conservation Importance and there are no sustainable reasons for refusal on Highways or access grounds. Approval is therefore recommended.

           Recommendation - Approval

Conditions/Reasons: