Development Control Committee 18 June, /D/09/ ITEM NUMBER 04

Transcription

1 Development Control Committee 18 June, /D/09/ ITEM NUMBER 04 Application Number: 1/D/09/ Full Registration Date: 31 March, 2009 Application Site: HIVE BEACH CAFE, BEACH ROAD, BURTON BRADSTOCK, DORSET, DT6 4RF Proposal: Erect awning/enclosure to extend canopied dining area Applicant: Hive Cafe Ward Members: Cllr M Parsons Case Officer: Darren Rogers This application is brought to Committee for determination by the Director of Planning and Environment following a request by the Chairman 1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Refuse 2. Description of development 2.1 The application site comprises a single storey building used as a restaurant, which is at the far end of Beach Road, and is bordered by a car park and open space. Immediately to the south of the car park is The Hive beach. The site is within the Heritage Coast and is also within the AONB. 2.2 This application is for the erection of an extended awning/enclosure to extend the existing canopied dining area. It is a retrospective application the awning having already been erected and it extends an existing awning approved in the element of 'extension' being in a southerly direction seawards. The applicant seeks permission for the months October - May stating it will be removed outside of those months. 2.3 An awning also green in colour was granted planning permission in July 2003 (1/W/2003/1006) and this application seeks permission for an extension to that approved structure in a southerly direction. An application also for that which is now sought permission was refused in February 2009 (1/D/2008/2227) on the following grounds: The proposed canopy/awning would, by reason of its depth, size and scale would fail to respect the form and character of the existing building and would also read as an unduly visually intrusive feature into this rural location, which would be harmful to the character and natural beauty of the countryside, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the World Heritage Coast to the detriment of visual amenity. The application is contrary to Policies SA1, SA2, DA6 and DA7 of the West Dorset District Local Plan.

2 3. Main planning issues The main issue with this application relate to the appearance and scale of this canopy extension in the context of the wider area and to the building itself. 4. Statutory Consultations Parish/Town Council 4.1 Parish Council No objection. Highway Authority 4.2 Highways (DCC) No comments 5. Other consultations 5.1 Natural England Development unlikely to affect SSSI or SAC Technical Services No significant impacts. Landscape Officers No objections given temporary period requested Public Rights of Way (DCC) No objections but rights of way must remain unobstructed- a temporary closure would be required under the Traffic Regulations Act 1984 this can be added as an informative to any permission granted. 6. Other representations 6.1 No third party replies 7. Human Rights 7.1 Article 6 - Right to a fair trial. 7.2 Article 8 - Right to respect for private and family life and home. 7.3 The first protocol of Article 1 Protection of property 8. Relevant Planning History App. No Type Proposal Decision Date 1/D/08/ FUL Erect awning/enclosure to extend canopied dining area R 04 February /D/09/ FUL Erect awning/enclosure to R extend canopied dining area 1/W/00/ FUL Remove existing fence and A 07 July 2000 construct dry stone faced wall 1/W/03/ FUL Erection of PVC fabric extension A 15 July /W/87/ tmp Erect beach cafe with toilet facilities A 26 October /W/88/ FUL Erect beach cafe and toilet R 04 August 1988 facilities 1/W/92/ FUL Construct Ice-Cream Servery A 27 April /W/96/ FUL Construct flexible canopy with supporting works and make A 04 March 1996

3 1/W/99/ alterations to outbuilding to form ice-cream kiosk FUL Erect detached store and provide escape door to cafe A 25 May The Development Plan Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG 10) Draft Regional Spatial Strategy (July 2008) EN1 Landscape and Biodiversity EN4 Quality in the Built Environment The Bournemouth, Dorset and Poole Structure Plan (adopted 13 July 2000) Environment Policy G AONB Environment Policy J Heritage Coast Implementation Policy D - When Preparing Local Plans And Determining Applications For Development, The Local Planning Authorities Should Take Into Account The Implications For The Security And Safety, And The Interests And Amenity, Of Local Residents, Visitors And Neighbouring Users. The West Dorset District Local Plan (adopted July 2006) SA1 Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty SA2 Heritage Coast Protection SA3 Landscape Character SA8 Protection of sites of international importance for nature conservation. SA9 Protection of National Nature Reserves and SSSIs AH1 River and Coastal Flooding AH3 Coast protection AH4 Land instability (general) DA6 Amenity considerations DA7 Detailed design and materials ET8 Tourist Attractions Outside DDB s 10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 WDDC Sustainable Design Guidelines Feb 2009 Policy a) Work In Harmony With The Site And Its Surrounds, And The Constraints And Opportunities These Create Policy h) Maintain And Enhance Local Character Policy i) Create High Quality Architecture 11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 Landscape Character Area Coastal Slope 12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 Conservation Area Appraisals - None 13. Planning issues 13.1 A similar awning also green in colour was granted planning permission in July 2003 (1/W/2003/1006). A further application for that which is now sought

4 permission was refused in February 2009 for the following reasons; The proposed canopy/awning would, by reason of its depth, size and scale would fail to respect the form and character of the existing building and would also read as an unduly visually intrusive feature into this rural location, which would be harmful to the character and natural beauty of the countryside, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the World Heritage Coast to the detriment of visual amenity. The application is contrary to Policies SA1, SA2, DA6 and DA7 of the West Dorset District Local Plan. The main difference now is that permission is sought as a seasonal structure only with the extended awning proposed to be removed for the summer months (May to September) 13.2 This site is within the AONB and Heritage Coast The main consideration is the visual impact on the wider landscape character. Landscape Officers have not raised any objection to this application due to the structure being a temporary one and this is also the reason why the Parish Council raises no objection subject to the Council ensuring that this period is monitored. However the structure (even as a temporary one for certain months of the year) would still in my view be harmful to the wider landscape The Design and Conservation Officer reiterates concerns as per the previously refused application which was: The special interest of this modest building form relies on its understated appearance in a SSSI and Special Area of Conservation, in the AONB (Local Plan Policy SA1) and Heritage Coast (Local Plan Policy SA2) adjacent to the World Heritage Site. The coastal footpath currently passes the south elevation of the café linking the two coastal slopes across the Hive beach. Any extension to the south, however temporary in nature, would have an adverse effect on the character and natural beauty of the Heritage Coast. The impact of the proposed 5x8m long tented structure will be visually harmful in this sensitive location Despite the planning permission which was approved in 2003 for an awning at this site the proposal now sought would further compound the impact of such a proposal on the wider landscape (despite its green colour to mitigate that impact) and it is clearly seen from wider views along the coastal footpath. In landscape terms the site had the same landscape designations in 2003 as now but clearly it was considered that the visual impact of the 2003 scheme was considered acceptable. However the 'extended' element even for the winter period would in my view result in a more visually prominent and obtrusive structure in this otherwise outstandingly natural beautiful area and heritage coast designation. I am of the view that a permanent and better designed extension to the building as a whole would be better in visual terms despite the fact that this is not what is being applied for here. The Council through its development plan policies and Central Government seek to ensure that quality design is at the forefront of new buildings and structures but I do not see that this structure meets this philosophy Policy ET8 (Tourist Attractions Outside The Defined Development Boundaries) states:

5 The development of tourist attractions / facilities (excluding accommodation) outside Defined Development Boundaries (as shown on the Proposals Map) will not be permitted unless: i) their scale is in keeping with the surrounding environment and they would not be visually intrusive in the wider landscape; ii) they either utilise, or are close to, existing buildings if the proposed development lies within the AONB; iii) they do not, either on their own or cumulatively with other established or proposed developments in the vicinity, harm the landscape character or rural amenity of the countryside and resident population; and iv) the potential increase in daily vehicle movements and the impact on the local highway network would be acceptable to the Highway Authority. The proposal is considered to be contrary to Criteria i and iii of ET8 for the reasons as outlined above Natural England were consulted on the previous application with regard to the impact on the SSSI and SAC, and they replied stating that the development would be unlikely to affect either of these designated sites. They raise no objections again to this application. In terms of slope instability, Technical Services previously advised that the loading on the slope would only be increased by a minor amount as a result of these works, and would not give rise to significant issues. They have not been consulted again given the previous comments and given that this is the same proposal. 14. Summary 14.1 The proposal even as a temporary feature for those months sought permission for is considered unacceptable on visual grounds POLICY ET12 (New Site Facilities, Internal Reorganization And Intensification Of Existing Sites) has been referred to in support of the application but this is not considered relevant as this Policy is in relation to Proposals for the intensification (increase in pitch number within the existing permitted area), the reorganization of uses/layout (within the existing sites) and new site facilities in connection with existing sites for tents, touring caravans, static caravans and chalets clearly not the case here. 15. Recommendation 15.1 Refusal is recommended on the following grounds i. The canopy/awning would, by reason of its depth, size and scale further compound the impact of such a proposal on the wider landscape and would read as an unduly visually intrusive feature into this rural location, which would be harmful to the character and natural beauty of the countryside, the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the World Heritage Coast to the detriment of visual amenity. The development is therefore considered to be contrary to Policies SA1, SA2, DA6 and DA7 of the West Dorset District Local Plan; Policy EN1 & EN4 of RPG 10 for the south west; and Environment Policy G & J of the adopted Structure Plan