Appeal 6000906

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted to station 3no. holiday lodges, install a package treatment plant & associated works at [site address] , [site address] [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, [name]/FUL/2024/04791, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

The appeal follows the failure of the Council to determine the planning application within the prescribed period. Had it been able to determine the application, the Council has indicated that the application would have been approved.

I note the minutes of the Northern Area Planning Committee meeting. While this is not the application decision, as jurisdiction over that was taken away when the appeal was lodged, I have treated it as the decision the Council would have made, had it been empowered to do so.

Although the Council had no objections to the proposal, the appeal site is located within the zone of influence for the [name] and Moors Ramsar Site and Special Protection Area (the SPA). The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2017 (as amended) (the Habitat Regulations) requires the decision-maker to consider whether or not a proposal could adversely affect the integrity of the site.

Therefore, given the above, the main issue is the effect of the proposal on the SPA.

The appeal site is within the zone of influence of the SPA, which is a designated site under the Habitats Regulations. [name] is the largest area of lowland wet grassland and associated wetland habitats in Britain, and its qualifying features relate to its support for overwintering birds and, in particular, Bewick’s swan, Eurasian teal, European golden plover and Northern lapwing. Foul water drainage associated with new development, including dwellings, increase the potential for phosphorus runoff entering the habitat site and causing eutrophication.

The proposal would result in a net increase of three new holiday accommodation units within the zone of influence for the SPA and, as such, would likely have a significant effect on the above qualifying features of the SPA both alone and in combination with other plans and projects. This would principally arise from phosphorus entering watercourses from foul water drainage as described above.

As a means of mitigation for this effect the appellant has proposed a new package treatment plant to be provided as part of the proposal. This plant would replace the existing one and serve not only the three proposed units but also six existing units. The proposed plant would reduce the level of nutrient runoff to below that currently generated by the existing plant. Given the likely significant effect outlined above, such a package treatment plant would be necessary to secure mitigation. I have been provided with conditions which would ensure that the plant is provided and maintained for the lifetime of the development.

Having regard to the submission by Natural England and relevant planning policy, I consider that the proposed measures would adequately mitigate the effects of the appeal scheme, either alone or in combination with other plans and projects, so that there would be no adverse effect upon the integrity of the SPA. Moreover, the mitigation would be secured and managed by way of planning conditions. Accordingly, the proposed development would comply with Policy ENV2 of the [name], Weymouth & Portland Local Plan (the LP) which requires that developments protect the natural environment including designated sites.

It has been suggested that one of proposed units would be on land outside of the appellant’s ownership. I have not been provided with substantive evidence to demonstrate that this is the case. However, this decision does not override the landowner’s ability to deny works from being carried out on it, but this would be a private matter.

I understand that Unit 7 has an access route to the rear garden that passes close by the proposed location of [address] 18. I also understand that this route provides the only disabled access to the rear garden of Unit 7. The plans before me demonstrate that this route would be left unaffected by the proposal and I am content that access would be maintained.

It appears from the plans before me that the proposal would potentially encroach over a public right of way (PROW) that crosses the appeal site. The PROW is a wide route and had, at the time of my visit, been laid out in gravel. The potential encroachment appears to be only very modest but, irrespective of the permission being granted here, permission for a diversion would need to be sought separately.

The proposal would introduce new built development into the wider holiday park. However, the design of the proposed units is sympathetic to, and commensurate with, the existing buildings characterising the park. Moreover, while they would likely be visible within the wider countryside, this would be within the context of the existing surrounding development and would not be harmful. I note that the Council found similarly and that the proposal would comply with Policies ECON6 and ECON7 of the [name] and Weymouth & Portland Local Plan.

There is some disagreement between the parties as to how the existing units should be treated. Some of the buildings are barn conversions while others appear to be purpose-built lodges, and not all are rented out as short-term holiday lets. I nevertheless understand that the park operates under a caravan site licence and, irrespective ownership type, they are not permanent dwellings. Moreover, during my site observations I found existing levels of privacy to be low given the open nature of the site. Mindful of this, the distance of separation, and the orientation between the existing and proposed units, the proposal would ensure that the living conditions of the neighbouring units would not be unacceptably affected with regard to privacy, outlook and natural light. Moreover, although there may be some impact on the views of the countryside from neighbouring units, such as numbers 10 and 11, private views are not in themselves regarded as a planning matter.

Concerns have been raised as to whether permission would have been granted for 19 holiday let units if they had originally been applied for altogether. However, this is not before me and I can only assess the appeal scheme, which is for three additional units. I also note concerns as to the proximity of the development to the boundary and the potential it would breach licensing. However, this is a matter outside of the remit for this appeal and would need to be dealt with privately.

No substantive details have been provided to demonstrate that the proposed drainage scheme would adversely affect a nearby barn, workshop and protected tree. Moreover, I am content that the provision of a suitable drainage scheme would be possible and that additional details can be sought through conditions which I have set out below. These would minimise flood risk and the effect of the proposal on nutrient neutrality. More broadly, I am also content that subject to the proposal being carried out in accordance with the arboricultural report that no unacceptable impacts would occur to any trees.

[name] note concerns as to the quality of the submitted plans, I am content that they are sufficient for me to determine this appeal. Although no details of any potential retaining walls have been provided, I find that these could be provided through a condition.

Given the nature of the use and the small number of units at the holiday park it is very likely that vehicular movements through the park are low. As the road through the site is laid out in gravel vehicle speeds are also very likely to be low. Therefore, and given the scale of the proposal, it is unlikely to significantly affect highway safety and I am content, subject to the proposal following the conditions below, that it would provide suitable space for vehicles to manoeuvre and park.

The Planning Practice Guidance makes it clear that private interests such as the alleged impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property is not a material consideration. Moreover, while there are concerns as to whether the proposal would follow building regulations, this is an issue outside of the remit of this appeal. Likewise, any maintenance, movement or removal, of the telegraph pole is a matter similarly outside of this appeal. The policies before me do not require a proposal for holiday accommodations units to demonstrate a need and so this has not been determinative in my considerations.

A previous decision at the appeal site, reference P/FUL/2021/04205, has been referred to by the parties. Parties have also compared the appeal site to other holiday parks in the area. However, I have not been provided with the full details and facts of this decision or the other parks. Whilst these examples are capable of being material considerations, all decisions turn on their own particular circumstances based on the facts and evidence before the decision-maker at the time. Therefore, I cannot make any meaningful comparisons to the appeal scheme before me which I must consider on its own merits.

I have had regard to the conditions suggested by the Council and the advice on planning conditions set out by the Framework and the Planning Practice Guidance. In the interests of clarity and enforceability, I have made some changes to the wording.

For certainty, I have set out the timescale for the commencement of development. A condition is also necessary, for certainty and enforceability, requiring that the development is carried out in accordance with the approved plans.

In the interests of character and appearance, as well as the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring units, a condition is required seeking details of floor levels and any potential retaining walls. [name] note the appellant intends the concrete pads to be set at ground level, given the sloping nature of the site, especially around unit 18, this is not sufficiently clear and further details would be required prior to commencement via a condition so that the exact land levels to be matched can be considered.

To protect water quality and prevent any increase to flood risk a pre-commencement condition would be required seeking additional SuDS details. In particular the appellant’s submitted information recommends an infiltration test be done. As the construction of the units and any changes to land levels may prejudice the SuDS options available this information would need to be sought prior to any development beginning.

The appellant has been consulted and was willing to accept both of the pre-commencement conditions set out above.

I am content that sufficient information has been provided to ensure that the trees on site would be protected through the development works and so additional information sought through a pre-commencement condition would not be needed.

To protect the character and appearance of the surrounding area, details of any external materials would need to be submitted. A condition is also required to secure the provision of suitable turning, manoeuvring and parking areas for the purposes of highway safety.

In order to ensure that the proposed units are used for the agreed purpose, I have attached a condition restricting the use of the development for holiday accommodation only.

In the interests of biodiversity, I have attached a condition requiring the proposal be carried out in accordance with the submitted ecological impact assessment. In the interests of nutrient neutrality, conditions are required setting out the sewage treatment package, its management and replacement. An additional condition is also required limiting the level of water usage per person per day in order to ensure nutrient neutrality and protect the [name] and Moors Ramsar catchment.

There are no material considerations that indicate the appeal should be determined other than in accordance with the development plan. For the reasons given above, I therefore conclude that the appeal should be allowed.

The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of three years beginning with the date of this permission.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved documents: 4777/01 E, 4777/02 G, 4777/03 C, 4777/04 B, 4777/05 A, Proposed elevations and proposed floor plan, Planning and [name] vB, [name] and Nutrient Assessment vC, [name] v4, and Flood Risk Assessment Drainage Statement.

No development shall commence until details of the finished floor levels of all of the lodges hereby permitted, including details of any retaining systems and decking structures, have first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

No development shall commence until a detailed surface water management scheme for the site, including during construction, and a timetable for implementation has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The surface water scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details and the timetable.

No works above ground level shall commence until details of all external facing materials for the walls and roofs have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the development shall proceed in accordance with such materials as have been agreed.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the method statement set out in section 5.0 of the [name] by Hellis Solutions Limited. A monitoring report shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority on completion of development.

The measures set out within the approved Ecological Impact Assessment agreed by the [name], certified by the Dorset Council Natural Environment Team on 18th November 2024 must be strictly adhered to. The units of holiday accommodation hereby approved must not be occupied until the measures detailed in the approved Biodiversity Plan have been completed in full and evidence of compliance, in accordance with section J of the approved Biodiversity Plan, has been supplied to the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, the approved measures must be permanently maintained and retained in accordance with the approved details.

None of the holiday accommodation units hereby permitted shall be occupied until the turning/manoeuvring and parking areas shown on approved document 4777/02 G have been constructed. Thereafter, these areas must be maintained, kept free from obstruction and made available for the turning/manoeuvring and parking of vehicles in perpetuity.

The Holiday accommodation units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the 30 [name] package treatment plant has been installed. Thereafter the 30 [name] package treatment plant shall be retained for the lifetime of the development unless replaced in accordance with condition 11.

The holiday accommodation units hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a maintenance plan for the 30 [name] package treatment plant has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The maintenance plan shall be adhered to for the lifetime of the 30 [name] package treatment plant.

Any replacement wastewater treatment systems shall achieve the same or an improved effluent phosphorus concentration as the 30 [name] package treatment plant. Any replacement wastewater treatment system shall be maintained in accordance with a maintenance plan submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Authority prior to its replacement and so as to ensure that the same or an improved effluent phosphorus concentration as the 30 [name] package treatment plant is achieved.

Details of measures to limit the water use of the lodges to 110 litres per person per day shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before the lodges are occupied. The submitted details shall include a water consumption calculation for each unit. The approved measures shall be implemented prior to occupation and maintained for the lifetime of the development in accordance with the approved details thereafter.

The accommodation hereby permitted shall be occupied for holiday purposes only; shall not be occupied as a person’s sole, or main place of residence; and the owners/operators must maintain an up-to-date register of the names of all owners/occupiers of the units of accommodation and of their main home addresses, and must make this information available at all reasonable hours at the request of a duly authorised officer of the Local Planning Authority.