Agenda item

Christchurch Town Ward

8/22/1069/FUL

An extension to the existing hotel to create additional hotel bedrooms and suites and ancillary plant rooms.

Christchurch Town Ward

8/22/1069/FUL

An extension to the existing hotel to create additional hotel bedrooms and suites and ancillary plant rooms.

Public Representations

Objectors 

vMark Stickland

vDavid Buist, read out by the Democratic Services Officer on behalf of the objector

Applicant/Supporters:

vPeter Lamb

vAndrew Emery, BCP Council

Ward Councillors:

Cllr M Cox

Resolved that planning permission be REFUSED, contrary to the recommendation to grant set out in the Officer’s report, for the following reasons:

1.          The proposed extension to the hotel, by reason of its design, which introduces significant fenestration to the north elevation, scale which increases the building's height and projects closer to the nearest residential properties and the subsequent proximity to neighbours in Creedy Drive will adversely impact on living conditions at these neighbouring dwellings by reason of a loss of privacy, overlooking and light pollution and disturbance from north facing windows in the proposed extension.

The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy HE2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan Part 1 - Core Strategy (2014).

2.          The proposal is within 5Km of a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This SSSI is also part of the designated Dorset Heathlands SPA (Special Protection Area) and Ramsar site and is also part of the Dorset Heaths SAC (Special Area of Conservation). The proximity of these European Sites (SPA and SAC) means that determination of the application should be undertaken with regard to the requirements of the Habitat Regulations 1994, in particular Regulations 48 and 49. If the Council had been minded to grant permission in all other respects it would have to carry out an appropriate assessment in accordance with the advice and procedures set out broadly in Circular 06/2005.

        The applicant has failed to demonstrate in accordance with the Habitat Regulations that the proposals will cause no harm to the SPA and SAC heathland. It is clear, on the basis of advice from Natural England that, the proposed development would in combination with other plans and projects within close proximity to heathland and in the absence of any form of acceptable mitigation be likely to have an adverse effect on the heathland special features including those which are SPA and SAC features. Having regard to the Waddenzee judgement (ECJ case C-127/02) the Council is not in a position to be convinced that there is no reasonable scientific doubt to the contrary. For these reasons, and without needing to conclude the appropriate assessment, the proposal is considered contrary to the recommendations of the Berne Convention Standing Committee on urban development close to the Dorset Heathlands and also the provisions of the Dorset Heathlands Planning Framework 2020-2025 Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), which took effect in November 2020. The proposal is also contrary to policy ME2 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan.

Voting: For – 6, Against – 5, Abstain – 1

Notes:

The motion was moved and seconded with an additional reason to refuse regarding the scale, bulk and mass impact on heritage assets contrary to Policy BE5 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan and the impact on conservation areas contrary to Policy HE1 of the Christchurch and East Dorset Local Plan.

A motion to amend the initial motion to remove this reason from the substantive motion was moved and seconded.

Voting: For – 8, Against – 4

This reason was therefore removed from the list of reasons for refusal for the substantive motion.