Development Control Committee 14 January, 2016 WD/D/15/002339 ITEM NUMBER 2

Development Control Committee 14 January, 2016 WD/D/15/002339 ITEM NUMBER 2 Application Number: WD/D/15/002339 Full Registration Date: 22 September, 2015 Application Site: EYPES MOUTH CAR PARK, MOUNT LANE, EYPE Proposal: Demolish existing Chalet & relocate/erect new Chalet to the rear of car park Applicant: Mr T & G Wingfield Digby Ward Members: Cllr S Christopher Case Officer: Joanne Langrish-Merritt The application has been brought to committee due to objections from the Parish Council. 1. Summary Recommendation 1.1 Approve subject to conditions 2. Description of development 2.1 The applicant is seeking permission to demolish the existing chalet and construct a replacement chalet to the rear of the car park. The site lies on the outskirts of the village of Eype within the AONB and Heritage Coast on the boundary of the World Heritage Site and a Site of Special Scientific Importance. The site forms part of the car park with the land sloping upwards towards the west. The existing chalet is positioned high on the slope in a prominent position which is visible from the car park and the adjacent South West Coast Path. This is a highly sensitive location within the Heritage Coast and the Dorset AONB. The surrounding landscape is open, coastal cliff top grassland making this a highly exposed and open location. The site is clearly seen from a long length of the South West Coast Path. 2.2 The proposal is to demolish the existing chalet and erect a replacement chalet towards the rear of the car park lower down the slope closer to the entrance and the chalets at Eypes Mouth Chalet Park. The plans propose a chalet with a similar size footprint although slightly larger to account for modern insulation. The applicant is intending the chalet to appear similar to the existing and therefore it would be constructed in a similar style with timber cladding and natural slate roofing. A small area of sitting out space has been identified around the chalet. The remaining car park would be retained

3. Main planning issues Principle of development Impact on AONB, Heritage Coast and visual amenity Impact on land stability and coastal erosion Impact on residential amenity Impact on parking 4. Statutory Consultations Parish/Town Council 4.1 Symondsbury Parish Council has objected to the application due to the reduction of parking spaces that the relocation of this chalet will cause. "The small village of the Eype does not have the capacity for parking within the village as the village consists of narrow winding lanes and relies heavily on this car park for tourism. We also have concerns regarding the obstruction of the footpath at the new location. They also requested confirmation that the ridge height will be no higher than the existing." Highway Authority 4.2 The Highway Authority has no objections 5. Other consultations 5.1 Natural England has no objections but has suggested that the Dorset AONB Team are consulted. 5.2 The Ministry of Defence has no objections 5.3 The Councils Technical Services Engineer has commented that: With regard to the demolition of the existing chalet, I agree with all measures recommended for minimising disturbance to the cliff - I have no further concerns with this element of the application. The relative size of the new chalet when compared with the existing is comparable so the loadings imposed by the new structure are unlikely to be significantly different. Ideally the drainage would run to a piped system, however, the disturbance caused by installing a new system could have a greater negative impact and therefore drainage to a soakaway 'field' where infiltration occurs over a large area, as opposed to being concentrated is acceptable in this instance. I don't agree with the statement made by Mr Dyke that the site will remain secure for the next 50 years. The coastal risk planning guidance suggests there is a small chance that the site could be lost in less than 20 years and with the current SMP policy showing no active intervention for the next 100 years, I would suggest that 50 years is perhaps not realistic. Despite the risks associated with the site, I would not object to the proposals. However, it should be made clear to the applicant that the new site is no less vulnerable and there is a real possibility that it may be lost much sooner than the suggested 50 years or so.

5.4 The Councils Landscape Officer has commented that: Given the prominence of the site in the coastal landscape, the Dorset AONB Team have been consulted, and make the following comments: Thank you for consulting the AONB Team regarding this application. I have reviewed the proposal in relation to our Management Plan and have also considered the proposal in the context of local and national planning policy. This review has led me to conclude that the proposal, which is located in a highly sensitive area, should not be supported. The site is located within the Dorset AONB, on the seaward side of the South West Coast Path (SWCP) to the west of Eype Mouth, where the path ascends the fringes of rising slumped cliffs toward Thorncombe Beacon. In addition to being within the AONB the site is also located within the West Dorset Heritage Coast and is within the immediate setting of the Dorset and East Devon Coast World Heritage Site (WHS). I would highlight the following aspects of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) that I consider particularly relevant to this proposal: Paragraph 114, which relates to Heritage Coasts, which NPPF defines as areas of undeveloped coastline which are managed to conserve their natural beauty and, where appropriate, to improve accessibility for visitors. NPPF states that: Local planning authorities should maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes, particularly in areas defined as Heritage Coast, and improve public access to and enjoyment of the coast. Paragraph 115 states that: Great weight should be given to conserving landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, the Broads and Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which have the highest status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty.... The site is located within the Chideock Hills landscape character area, as defined by the Dorset AONB Landscape Character Assessment (LCA). With reference to the visual character and perceptions of the landscape character area the LCA notes that: Impressive sweeping views of coastal landforms are found along the entire coast set against the greensand summits of Golden Cap, Thorncombe Beacon and the wooded Langdon Hill. It is within this visual context that the existing and replacement chalets are located. Dorset AONB has a suite of Special Qualities (SQs) that make it a unique and outstanding place, underpinning its designation as a nationally important landscape. These are the features that we need to conserve and enhance for the future and they should be considered in decisions affecting the AONB. There are two special qualities that I consider could be affected by the proposed development: Uninterrupted panoramic views to appreciate the complex pattern and textures of the surrounding landscapes An exceptional undeveloped coastline

The principal reason that I do not consider that the proposal for a replacement chalet conforms with the statutory purpose of Dorset AONB (this being the conservation and enhancement of the Area s natural beauty), is that the removal of the existing structure would enhance the natural character of the seascape at this location, by removing a manmade feature that intrudes into fine panoramic views along our exceptional undeveloped coastline. Such views include those along the WHS that are achieved from the SWCP National Trail. It is my understanding that if the replacement dwelling is not approved it will be the responsibility of the owner to make safe and remove the existing structure. I recommend that you confirm this position with the planning officer. If my interpretation is correct, there is an opportunity for enhancement of the AONB s SQs that would be missed were a replacement chalet approved. I have reviewed the plans for the replacement structure and I consider that the overall landscape and visual effects of the new structure very similar to the existing building. I should highlight that this comment is made with reference to pubic views, as opposed to the visual amenity of neighbours. The site of the relocated chalet is less elevated and further from coastal edge, although this distance will reduce in time due to on-going erosion. I note that the replacement structure is closer to the SWCP, although it is my understanding that the proposal will not physically restrict the use of the SWCP. While the closer proximity of the replacement structure to the path would restrict views to a greater degree than the existing chalet for a short duration, I do not consider this change to be of such magnitude as to be significant. Overall my concerns are not founded on the additional or alternative adverse effects, as compared with the existing structure. It is my opinion that new development in this location is not desirable and that accommodating a replacement chalet is not necessary. I understand that in Coastal Change Management Areas the Council would be obliged to consider replacement dwellings where property is affected by coastal erosion. However the site does not fall within such an area. New development in this location would not be permissible, in my opinion, and I do not consider there to be a compelling case to consider the replacement chalet as necessary development in this instance. I have considered the proposal in relation to Dorset AONB s Management Plan 2014-19, which is a material consideration in the planning process and provides a framework to help guide authorities in fulfilling their statutory duty, informing the development of local planning policy and influencing development decisions. I consider that the proposal conflicts with the following objectives and policies: 1. Objective L1: Conserve and enhance the AONB and the character and quality of its distinctive landscapes and associated features: L1c: Conserve and enhance the special qualities of the AONB such as tranquillity and remoteness, wildness and dark skies

2. Objective L2: Conserve and enhance the AONB by removing, avoiding and reducing intrusive and degrading features: L2c: Remove, avoid and reduce intrusive and degrading features to restore and enhance landscape character and quality 3. Objective CS3: Maintain and enhance the open and undeveloped nature of the AONB s coastal landscapes and seascapes: CS3c: Conserve the undeveloped nature of the coast CS3d: Remove intrusive and urbanising features from the coast 4. Objective PH1: Support sustainable development that conserves and enhances the special qualities of the AONB: PH1a: Ensure that any necessary development affecting the AONB is sensitively sited and designed and conserves and enhances local character PH1g: Conserve and enhance the AONB s undeveloped rural character, panoramic views, tranquillity, remoteness and wildness 5. Objective PH2: Impacts of development and land use damaging to the AONB s special qualities are avoided and reduced PH2b: Protect the quality of uninterrupted panoramic views into, within and out of the AONB On the basis of the above comments, and the conflict with the statutory purpose of the AONB, its special qualities, and the Dorset AONB Management Policies set out above, I would conclude that the proposed development would fail to meet Local Plan policy ENV1(i). With the existing chalet forming a visually prominent development feature in the undeveloped coastline, prolonging its presence through this application as an intrusive structure would also fail to meet the policy objectives of ENV1(ii) and (iii) and the relevant criteria of ENV10. In favour of the application are the degrees of harm that would result from the development. The replacement chalet would be of near-identical appearance and scale, and set at a slightly lower elevation on the cliff-top. If you consider that the principle of development here is established, and a temporary extension of harmful development is justified, there will be an inevitable limit on the duration of the development due to the continued erosion of the cliff. However, as noted above, the landscape tests of the Local Plan would not be satisfied, and could therefore justify refusal of the application on landscape grounds. If you were minded to recommend approval of the application, conditions securing the removal of the existing chalet and the restoration the current site to grassland should be imposed, to conserve the undeveloped character of the cliff.

5.5 The Dorset County Rights of Way Officer has commented that The proposed works directly affect Footpath 34, Symondsbury and I strongly advise that the conditions below are included in any planning approval: A 2m wide useable route must be left between the fence to the north and the proposed development, to allow unhindered access to the footpath. This should be the flat area and not include the heavily vegetated bank. There should be no gates installed across the footpath 6. Other representations 6.1 Five letters of objection have been received. The main focus of the objections relate to: Loss of parking Height and scale of replacement chalet Location of the replacement chalet and possibility of it blocking the footpath Impact on the Heritage coast and AONB Impact on open aspect of the other chalets Impact on land stability Precedent One letter of support has been received Copies of the letters of representation are available to view on the website - www.dorsetforyou.com. 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 None 9. The Development Plan The West Dorset Weymouth and Portland Plan (2015) ENV1 Landscape, Seascape and sites of geological importance ENV5 Flood risk ENV7 Coastal erosion and land instability ENV12 Design ENV16 Amenity ECON6 New built tourist accommodation SUS2 - Distribution of development SUS4 - Replacement of buildings outside defined development boundaries HOUS6 - Other residential development outside defined development boundaries 10. Supplementary planning documents 10.1 Policy A, H and I of the Design and Sustainable Development Planning Guidelines

11. Supplementary planning guidance 11.1 None 12. Other Material Planning Considerations 12.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012) Part 7 Design Part 10 Flooding and coastal erosion Part 11 Conserving and enhancing the Natural Environment Decision taking: Para 186 - Local planning authorities should approach decision-taking in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development. The relationship between decision-taking and plan-making should be seamless, translating plans into high quality development on the ground. Para 187 - Local planning authorities should look for solutions rather than problems, and decision-takers at every level should seek to approve applications for sustainable development where possible. Local planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions of the area. 13. Planning issues 13.1 Principle of development Policy HOUS6 allows for the replacement of an existing lawful dwelling-house located outside of the Defined Development Boundaries on a one-for-one basis. As the chalet has been in existence since the 1930s it does not have any form of residential restriction and the applicant initially applied for the replacement chalet to be an unrestricted dwelling. Policy HOUS6 allows for a one for one replacement provided that: The new building can be accommodated within the existing curtilage The new building is not significantly larger than the original and it does not adversely affect the appearance of the locality or its landscape setting. 13.2 The existing chalet does not have a clearly defined curtilage as such, however, it does have an area which is used by the applicants for sitting out. Nevertheless the proposed replacement chalet would be located outside of this area mainly due to the issues relating to the immediate risk of coastal erosion and as such the development would be contrary to this part of the policy. However the benefits of the proposed position should be also be considered. The replacement chalet would be moved further down the slope in a less prominent position and although it would not be within the 'curtilage' of the existing chalet it would be within the existing car park area and would be in a less obtrusive area closer to the other chalets. 13.3 The second part of the policy relates to the size of the replacement chalet. The replacement chalet would be 40cm longer and 40cm wider and the same height as the existing. The minimal increase in the lenght and width would be to account for the inclusion of modern insulation. Furthermore as stated above the location for the replacement chalet would be in less prominent, lower position adjacent to the existing chalet at Eypes Mouth Holiday Park. As such the proposal is considered to comply with this part of the policy.

Therefore, whilst the proposal would not comply with all parts of the policy there are considered to be benefits to the proposed replacement chalet and on balance the principle is considered to be acceptable. Nevertheless although the principle of the replacement of the chalet may be acceptable other considerations must be made. 13.4 The site lies within a potential coastal recession area; it is very close to the cliff edge and as such consideration has been given to the Shoreline Management Plan. The application site lies within the Cliff Top Recession area and in an area identified for 'no active intervention' consequently the site could be threatened in the medium-term i.e. 20-50 years. The current application whilst moving the chalet further down the slope would not move the chalet out of the cliff top recession area to an area less vulnerable to coastal erosion. 13.5 The Coastal Risk Planning guidance for West Dorset Weymouth and Portland states that: "No permanent development should occur in the area at risk of erosion along the cliff top or coastal slope seawards of the defined erosion bands...the type of development appropriate in this area are short terms holiday lets camping and caravan sites or facilities associated with tourism." 13.6 Furthermore Policy ENV7 states that "within coastal change management area no new development will be permitted for residential development or similarly occupied uses." 13.7 The existing chalet has been present on the site since the 1930s and as such the building has no restrictions in terms of its use. However the site is within the Cliff Top Recession Area where permanent residential accommodation would not be supported. Initially the applicant applied for the chalet as an unrestricted dwelling, however, following discussions with the applicant regarding the shoreline management area the applicant has agreed to the proposed chalet being restricted to holiday accommodation only. Therefore as with other replacement chalet applications at Eypes Mouth Chalet Park the Council would seek to restrict the occupation of the chalet to holiday purposes only especially as it is within the Cliff Top Recession area where permanent residential development would not be supported, but holiday accommodation would be acceptable. 13.8 Impact on the visual amenity AONB and Heritage Coast The overall footprint of the chalet is slightly larger than the existing and as such this small increase would not be readily noticeable. The proposed site of the chalet would be on lower ground and clustered together with the other chalets at Eypes Mouth Chalet Park which would further reduce its overall impact. Therefore whilst the replacement chalet would be visible from the public footpath it is not considered to have an additonal impact on the wider landscape. The replacement chalet would be dug into the slope to minimise its overall visual impact and it would have a ridge height no higher than the chalet to the rear (no 15).The proposed replacement chalet is to be of a similar design to the existing including the materials and finish which coupled with its position and height would minimise any adverse impact on this open landscape.

13.9 As the site would be located further down the slope within the parking area it is likely that any sitting out area would need to be delineated with a fence. It is important that this area is kept as open and clutter free as possible and therefore the applicant is intending to erect a low unobtrusive fence. There would be concern over the potential visual intrusion of domestic paraphernalia of any sort including benches or patios in this area and a condition removing permitted development rights for extensions, roof alterations and outbuildings would be attached to any permission. 13.10 The AONB Team and the Landscape Officer have both raised concerns in relation to the landscape impact of the proposed development. The AONB Team have commented that the proposed development is not desirable and that the removal of the existing structure could enhance the natural seascape by removing this manmade object. However it must be considered that the proposed chalet is of a similar scale and has a similar appearance to the existing chalet and would be in a less elevated position. Furthermore although the chalet would be moved further down the site it would still be within the coastal recession area and therefore the duration of the development would be restricted by the ongoing coastal erosion. Therefore taking into consideration the benefits of the proposed site, the replacement chalet is not considered to result in any further significant detrimental impact to the landscape character of the area than the existing and given the limited life span of the development is, on balance, considered to be acceptable. 13.11 The Landscape Officer, AONB Team, Technical Services Engineer and Natural England are keen for the redundant site to be returned to its original state and all debris removed. This area forms part of the SSSI and as such it will be returned to its natural form to prevent any further adverse harm especially when viewed from the adjacent footpath. As such a condition is recommended to be attached to any permission ensuring that the redundant area of the existing chalet will be returned to its natural state and all debris removed. 13.12 Impact on residential amenity The chalet would be moved from its current positon further down the slope to an area which is in close proximity to the other chalets at Eypes Mouth Chalet Park. Nevertheless the chalet has been positioned to the west of the chalets closest to the southern boundary to prevent an overbearing impact. The existing chalets to the north are more than 50m away and as such there is not considered to be an overbearing impact. The proposed chalet would have a ground floor window on the eastern elevation which would serve the proposed kitchen. The closest chalet to the east is set back from the southern boundary and although there is an existing window on the western elevation due to the position of the two chalets they would be at an oblique angle to each other. Therefore the proposed window in the eastern elevation would look towards the front garden area of no 15 which is adjacent to the existing footpath and parking area and not a private space. As such the proposed replacement chalet is not considered to result in a significant loss of residential amenity to warrant refusal.

13.13 Impact on instability and coastal erosion The replacement chalet would be of a similar scale to the existing with only a marginal increase. Therefore the loadings imposed by the new structure are unlikely to be significantly different. The coastal risk planning guidance suggests there is a small chance that the site could be lost in less than 20 years especially with the current Shoreline Management Plan policy showing no active intervention for the next 100 years. Although the chalet is being moved further down the slope it is not been moved out of the cliff top recession area. Therefore the chalet is prposed to be restricted to holiday accommodation only which would be an acceptable use in this area. Furthermore the Technical Service Engineer has assessed the proposals and has no objections. As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable in terms of instability and coastal erosion. 13.14 Impact on parking The existing car park is not a public car park but is voluntarily opened by the applicant to provide access to the beach. The proposed replacement chalet would result in the loss of 9 parking spaces. However the existing permanent area or hardstanding would not be affected and the adjacent grassy areas of te car park have their maion emphasis of use during the main summer season. This is in overall terms a sizeable car park. Therefore overall the loss of parking spaces would be modeest and as this is a privately owned car park it could be closed at any point preventing any parking from taking place at all. As such the proposed development is not considered to have a significantly adverse impact on parking to warrant refusal. Furthermore the Highway Authority has no objections. 13.15 Impact on Right of Way In accordance with the suggestion from the Dorset County Rights of Way Officer the position of the chalet has been moved 1m further south so that there is approximately 2m to the north of the chalet. This would allow adequate space for the designated South West Coast Path and would not result in any form of obstruction to the right of way. a condition would be attached to any permission preventing gates from being erected across the Right of Way. 14. Summary 14.1 The proposed chalet would be located further down the slope than the existing it would be of a similar scale and appearance to the existing and in a less prominent position. As such the proposal is not considered to result in a significantly adverse visual impact on the wider landscape of the AONB and heritage coast. 14.2 The chalet would be restricted to holiday accommodation only as it would be located in the cliff top recession area where permanent residential accommodation would not be supported, and removal of the existing chalet would resuklt in a visual enhancement. The chalet is also considered to be acceptable in terms of residential amenity and parking.

15. Recommendation 15.1 Approve i. Standard 3 years ii. iii. Plans list Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and County Planning (General Development) Order 2015 ( or any order provoking, re-enacting or modifying that order) no development permitted by Schedule 2, Part 1 Class A, B, C and E of the above order shall be carried out at the site, without the prior grant of planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity. iv. No development shall be commenced until details and samples of all external facing materials and finish for the walls and roof shall have been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. Thereafter, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority the development shall proceed in strict accordance with such materials as have been agreed. REASON: To ensure a satisfactory visual appearance of the development. v The building shall be used for holiday purposes only and shall not be used as the main, or sole, residence of the occupier. REASON: The Local Planning Authority is prepared to permit the use of the site only for holiday purposes because it is located in an area where permanent residential use is not supported. vi A register of all persons occupying the holiday accommodation hereby approved shall be kept by, or on behalf of, the owner/ owners of the holiday accommodation. The said register shall be made available for inspection during all reasonable hours at the request of a duly authorised officer of the Local Planning Authority, for such time as the development continues to be used as holiday accommodation. REASON: To ensure that the accommodation is used for holiday purposes only. vii No development shall commence until details of the finished floor levels and a section of the building hereby approved have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Such levels shall be relative to an ordnance datum or such other fixed feature as may be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details. REASON In the interests of visual amenity viii Prior to the first occupation of the chalet hereby approved, the existing chalet shall be demolished and all debris removed from the site and the site shall be restored in accordance with a scheme to be submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. REASON: In the interests of visual amenity

ix No gates shall be installed across the designated public footpath and its route shall be kept clear of obstruction. REASON: To prevent obstruction to the designated footpath to facilitate access.