Members of the Planning Committee deliberated an application today (Tuesday) for variation of conditions for a luxury gated holiday development on the site of the former Atherfield Holiday Park.
The Planning Officer, who recommended conditional permission, presented the variations to the original planning permission. Variations include an increase in height to many of the 63 units, as well as increase in windows and
Public objections
This was followed by letters from members of the public, Guy Eades and Lydia Fulleylove, both objecting to the scheme and citing environmental factors such as the Unesco Biosphere Reserve and Dark Skies accreditation.
The agent Andrew White made the case on behalf of the client, followed by a lengthy objection from Cllr Giles Alldred from Shorwell Parish Council, who argued that the changes are not minor and should be considered as a new planning application.
Cllr Steve Hastings (Con), the IW ward councillor, also spoke on behalf of his residents against the variations.
Members’ questions
Members were given an opportunity to question the planning officer about his recommendations. Cllr Vanessa Churchman (Con) raised queries about the ridge height of the buildings, as well as the need for wheelchair access.
Cllr Chris Jarman (Alliance) questioned what mitigations were going to be in place, recognising the ecology value of the site and the Island’s Unesco Biosphere Status. It was said the development could enhance the ecological value, which was previously a derelict holiday camp on the site.
Minor changes
The planning officer said planning was not about making a percentage comparison, it’s about the impact on amenity and the environment. He said when comparing the 2016 scheme with the 2021 variations, the changes were minor.
Cllr Matthew Price (Con) asked for clarifcation that the part of the site which was sold off was part of original considerations for biodiversity – given that biodiversity mititgations are now out of the hands of the developer – and whether it affected the original planning permission. The officer replied that Natural England and the IWC’s ecologist have not objected to the changes, so it won’t affect the original planning permission.
Restricted occupancy?
Cllr Martin Oliver (Con) asked whether it was a holiday site application with restricted occupancy, or whether they would become residential properties. The planning officer said it was a holiday site and conditions would allow IWC to have control over use of the site.
Cllr Claire Critchison (Alliance) raised a question about landscaping and whether the plans comply with Dark Skies. The planning officer said the AONB team had not objected on dark skies grounds, but have asked for a condition to mitigate any possible harm on the dark skies.
Price: What can we do to use our powers of the committee?
Cllr Price said they were looking at a signification retrospecitve planning application where a lot of it had alrady been completed.
“It would be hard to ask for units to be torn down. Without being unfair to the applicant what can we do to use our powers of the committee?”
Has to be balanced with fallback position
The planning officer said through section 73 of the Planning Act variations can be submitted for consideration. He said they could ask the developer to make all the changes necessary to return the development to the agreed version.
He added that this has to be balanced with the fall back position, where you would balance the benefits with tourism as a whole – pointing out the site was derelict for many years prior to the development starting.
Section 106 money
Cllr Jarman said he understood that the Section 106 payment should have been made prior to commencement of the scheme. The planning officer confirmed the money should have been paid before commencement and that they have raised it with the developer who say when the new S.106 money is agreed, the money will be paid in full.
Cllr Vanessa Churchman (Con) asked how permission could be given and then the developer builds it differently, coming now for retrospective permission.
She said,
“This is blatant attack on democracy, which is now being overidden and we are being asked to rubberstamp it.”
Make S.16 payment first
Cllr Chris Quirk (Con) said he was frustrated that the changes had been made without permission, but felt the site was an asset to the Island’s tourism offer. He said forcing it to full planning permission was pedantic.
Cllr Quirk proposed that if permission is given it should be on the condition that the S.106 money is paid first. The legal officer said that would be difficult as the payment of the S.106 condition is to be paid after approval.
Cllr Price suggested IWC prevent occupancy before S.106 money is paid.
The officer said as there are still 63 units, it was not reasonable to ask for more S.106 money.
Will attract a lot of money and attention
Cllr Price added that after visiting the site it was obvious it is a high end tourism site, if not turned into housing by stealth, and if run as holiday apartments will attract a lot of attention and money to stay there.
He pointed out that a large number of local contractors have also been earning money working on the site.
Despite objecting to one of the previous applications on the site, he said,
“That site was blight on the landscape.”
Cllr Oliver praised the quality of the accommodation offer and said he felt it was going to be great news for the area and the Island.
Cllr Churchman said she was concerned about the number of windows and light that would come from them at night and its impact on Dark Skies. She didn’t want to see the same thing happen again with retrospective applications.
Chairman of the committee Cllr Michael Lilley (Alliance) explained that the variation application had been called in to the committee when it could have been decided by the officers.
Cllr Quirk’s motion
Going to the vote on Cllr Quirk’s motion, accept officer recommendation to grant conditional approval.
Three cllrs voted in favour, five voted against. The motion failed.
Cllr Jarman’s motion
Cllr Jarman put forward the motion to reject the application, “recognising it is a substantial change and cannot be dealt with under this category” and that there should be a full application.
The motion was seconded by Cllr Churchman.
The Strategic Manager for Planning and Infrastructure Delivery said advice had been received from officers and statutory consultees to agree the variations and so to refuse on those grounds could create a siginifcant risk to the council. He said they
The named vote for Cllr Jarman’s motion to refuse the application say Cllrs Churchman, Critchison and Jarman voted in favour.
Against were Cllrs Adams, Oliver, Price, Quirk and Lilley.
Cllr Price’s motion
Cllr Price said he was putting forward a motion with “a heavy heart”, adding that “it would look bad from every angle for us to refuse this application”.
His motion was to approve the variation in line with officers’ recommendations with a 50 per cent increase in S.106 money, for rights of way and to ensure it’s paid in full in advance of any occupancy of any unit, and to ensure there’s a significant uplift tin the landscaping of the site. Cllr Quirk seconded it.
Cllr Churchman asked if something could be added about the windows. Cllr Price said it would be unreasomable to have to change the windows now.
Cllr Jarman said LGA advice given today was that if new conditions are included in a recommendation, that sufficient time should be given to consider those changes and suggested referral might be recommended.
The Strategic Manager for Planning and Infrastructure Delivery made a recommendation of the wording could include conditions relating to light spillage, rights of way, landscaping etc.
The vote saw five in favour and two against with one abstention.
The application for variations to the conditions was approved.
Photo by CreditScoreGeek.com
