241 holiday caravans at Weymouth Bay Holiday Park, Preston Road, Weymouth

What was proposed

The application proposed 241 holiday caravans across four areas, five caravan relocations, supporting infrastructure and removal of a telecommunications mast.

“Description of development 5.1 This is a full planning application proposing the installation of 241 no. static caravans and associated decking, the relocation of 5 No. static caravans, and associated infrastructure including Sustainable Urban Drainage (SuDs), an attenuation basin, foul water drainage, internal access roads and car parking spaces, footpaths and hard and soft landscaping as well as the removal of an existing telecommunications mast and associated…”

“The proposed development comprises: Installation of bases for the siting of 241 static caravans, with associated decking, located at: Area B (to the southeast of Weymouth Holiday Park): 56 bases; Area D (between Weymouth and Seaview Holiday Parks): 31 bases; Area E (to the south of Seaview Holiday Park): 99 bases; and, Area G (to the southwest of Weymouth Holiday Park): 55 bases.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site comprises pastoral fields beside existing holiday parks, with the River Jordan, flood-risk areas, landscape designations, heritage assets and public rights of way nearby.

“Description of site 4.1 The proposed development site occupies a group of pastoral fields to the south and east of the existing Weymouth Bay and Seaview holiday parks and the north and west of Waterside Holiday Park. The settlement of Overcombe lies to its west, Preston and Sutton Poyntz to its north, Osmington further to its east and the town of Weymouth further to its southwest. Access to the Site is provided from Preston Road (A353) to the north.”

“The site lies within an area of identified as Land of Local Landscape Importance within the West Dorset, Weymouth and Portland Local Plan. The boundary of the Dorset National Landscape (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, AONB) lies just to the north and east of the site.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier proposals for caravan development and park expansion included refusals, dismissed appeals and several pre-application or environmental assessment consultations.

“Relevant planning history 94/00233/FUL - Decision: REFUSED - Decision Date: 29/06/1994 Extension to caravan park and provision of sports field and sports pitch. Reasons: Loss of important greenspace, archaeology, flood plain and expansion which were restricted under the local policy at the time.”

“06/00018/FUL- Decision: REFUSED & APPEAL DISMISSED- Decision Date: 01/03/2006 New static caravan community comprising 30 bases relates to Seaview Holiday Park, which is adjacent to, but not part of Weymouth Bay Holiday Park. Reason: Harm to character and appearance of the area on account of the lack of screening at the time, reasons which were upheld on appeal.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Statutory and council consultees generally raised no objection, subject to conditions or obligations, while some consultees highlighted cumulative landscape, heritage and infrastructure effects.

“Archaeology - No objection subject to condition. Remains that would be affected by the development should be recorded by condition. • Building Control West Team – No comment. • Caravan, camping and park home sites – No reply. • Conservation – No objection The scheme has been assessed on its effect toward identified designations. • Coastal Risk Management - No comment. • Dorset National Landscape (AONB) – No objection subject to conditions.”

“Landscape – No objection Initially the proposed development would clearly have an adverse landscape and visual impact related to the caravans, but the coloured materials would mitigate this impact to some extent. Subject to establishment and with time, the proposed mitigatory planting would likely become the dominant landscape and visual feature and have a significant beneficial effect on the landscape and visual impact of existing development.”

Officer report

What residents said

Most representations objected, citing traffic, wildlife, noise, open-space loss, landscape harm, flooding, infrastructure, sewerage, pollution and effects on local homes.

“Main Additional traffic/queues at entrance/danger to road users/use of Church Road (80) Harm to wildlife (63) Noise (from traffic, music, people, pets, car doors, gardeners, ‘fairground’ type attractions, construction work, etc) (58) Loss of open space for recreation/dog walking/ambience (42) Harm to character and appearance (and National Landscape) (40) Excessive/overdevelopment/enough caravans/developer profiteering/community pays (33) Flooding (surface water drainage…”

“Insufficient parking (including for staff) (5) Waste (4) Water supply adequacy (4) Access for emergency services (3) Overbearing (3) Crime (3) Effect (negative) on house prices (3) Gas pipeline (3) Previous refusals (3) Competition with other businesses (3) The use of the gate via Cedar Drive and Forehill for works and access vehicles (3) Foot traffic down Cedar Drive & Maple Close (2) Dog fouling (2) Telecom mast loss of phone signals (2) Further precedent (1) No cycle…”

Officer report

Who spoke

Three members of the public spoke against the application, the applicant’s representative supported it, and both local ward members raised concerns.

What members debated

Members questioned area G, planting, economic evidence, separation from homes, traffic and infrastructure, with one member also raising landscape and World Heritage Site concerns.

“In response to questions from members, officers provided the following responses: • A condition would require a landscape planting scheme to be submitted for approval, so the size of the trees planted could be controlled. • Discussions had taken place with the applicant about the size of area G, however the applicant had not reduced the size. • The economic figures had not been independently assessed and had been taken from the applicant on face value.”

“One member raised a concern about the visual impact of the development on the National Landscape and its impact on the World Heritage Site.”

Minutes

The committee’s vote

Cllr Monks proposed and Cllr Taylor seconded deferral so members could visit Forehill Close and area G.

“It was proposed by Cllr Monks and seconded by Cllr Taylor, to defer the application to allow the committee to conduct a site visit to Forehill Close and area G, in order to better understand the visual impacts of the scheme.”

Minutes

The decision

The application was deferred to allow members to conduct a site visit.

“Decision: That the application be deferred to allow members to conduct a site visit.”

Minutes