|
|
APPLICATION NO. |
|
|
|
APPLICATION TYPE |
FULL APPLICATION |
|
|
REGISTERED |
19.7.2021 |
|
|
PARISH |
HENLEY-ON-THAMES |
|
|
WARD MEMBER(S) |
Ken Arlett Kellie Hinton Stefan Gawrysiak |
|
|
APPLICANT |
Hobbs of Henley |
|
|
SITE |
Hobbs Red Lion Moorings, Thameside, Henley on Thames, RG9 2LJ |
|
|
PROPOSAL |
Installation of an accessible boat mooring. (as amended by plans including a reduction in the size of the floating pontoon and the loss of one finger jetty to allow for the mooring of boats closer to the river bank and not out into the river navigation submitted 2 March 2022). |
|
|
OFFICER |
Caitlin Phillpotts |
|
1.0 |
INTRODUCTION AND PROPOSAL |
|
1.1 |
The application is referred to Planning Committee because the Officers’ recommendations conflict with the views of Henley Town Council.
|
|
1.2 |
The site forms a small parcel of land lying along the banks of the River Thames between Thameside and an existing line of pontoon mornings, located within the built up limits of Henley-On-Thames. The site lies inside of Henley’s Main Conservation Area and within the setting of the Grade I listed Henley Bridge and a number of surrounding listed buildings. The site lies inside of flood zone 3.
|
|
1.3 |
The application seeks planning permission for the construction of an accessible ramp extending from the adjoining highway and down to an existing area of pontoons to be upgraded as part of the proposed scheme. Indicatively the proposed boundary treatments are shown in a combination of painted meatal estate rail and timber fencing in a design and style to match the existing gates and fences in the immediate area. A copy of the plans is attached as Appendix A and other documentation associated with the application can be viewed on the council’s website, www.southoxon.gov.uk.
|
|
2.0 |
SUMMARY OF CONSULTATIONS & REPRESENTATIONS |
|
2.1 |
Henley-on-Thames Town Council
-
Recommends refusal due to the impact of the proposal on the - |
|
2.2 |
County Archaeological Services - Comments with no objections
|
|
2.3 |
Conservation Officer (South and Vale) - Raises no objections, commenting the proposals are in keeping with the riverside character of the conservation area. There would be a negligible visual impact at street level where the railings are proposed to remain as existing, and the ramp would not obstruct views between the bridge and other buildings within the conservation area
|
|
2.4 |
Countryside Officer (South and Vale) - Comments with no objections
|
|
2.5 |
Drainage - (South and Vale) – No comments
|
|
2.6 |
Forestry Officer (South and Vale) - Comments with no objections
|
|
2.7 |
Contaminated Land - Comments with no objections
|
|
2.8 |
Environment Agency : Flood Risk – Planning - Comments with no objections subject to the recommended conditions
|
|
2.9 |
Environment Agency : River Thames Waterways Team - Raises no objections commenting, following the submission of new plans… it is now clear there are no changes planned for the configuration of the finger moorings. Therefore, the Environment Agency withdraw their objections to this application as it will not impact on Navigation of the river Thames
|
|
2.10 |
Equalities Officer - No objections, highlighting available guidance on inclusive-mobility with a guide to distances an impaired person can walk before needing a rest and suitable surfacing materials
|
|
2.11 |
The Henley Society (Planning) - Objects for the same reasons as Henley Town Council.
|
|
2.12 |
Neighbours - Original Plans (3 representations) Object raising concerns over; the impact of the proposed development on the existing use and accessibility of the Red Lion Lawn mooring immediately south of the application site; the potential net loss of one mooring space along this section of the river; the potential for the new pontoon to accommodate larger boats to be moored further out into the navigation and the resulting obstruction this may cause to other boat users and altered views into and across the river inside of the conservation area; issues of safe access onto the proposed ramp from the busy road with narrow footpath; increased risk of flooding / water displacement from the larger pontoon proposed; river safety due to potential obstructions of boats being moored further out into the navigation (particularly during the regatta season); impact on noise and traffic disruption resulting from the intensification of use of the site; impact on the adjacent tree scape protected by virtue of the conservation area - First reconsultation (1 representation) Welcomes the reduction in the obstruction of the waterways, other previous objection maintained - Second reconsultation (1 representation) Previous objection with regards to visual impact, access and parking maintained. Notes the proposed morning would encroach on the riparian rights of the council owned land that is adjacent.
|
|
3.0 |
RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY |
|
3.1 |
None |
|
4.0 |
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT |
|
4.1 |
Not applicable |
|
POLICY & GUIDANCE |
|
|
5.1 |
South Oxfordshire Local Plan 2035
|
|
|
STRAT1 - The Overall Strategy HEN1 - The Strategy for Henley-on-Thames CF2 - Provision of Community Facilities and Services CF4 - Existing Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities DES1 - Delivering High Quality Development DES2 - Enhancing Local Character DES3 - Design and Access Statements DES6 - Residential Amenity DES8 - Promoting Sustainable Design EMP11 - Tourism ENV1 - Landscape and Countryside ENV2 - Biodiversity - Designated sites, Priority Habitats & Species ENV3 - Biodiversity ENV4 - Watercourses ENV6 - Historic Environment ENV7 - Listed Buildings ENV8 - Conservation Areas ENV9 - Archaeology and Scheduled Monuments ENV12 - Pollution - Potential Sources of Pollution EP4 - Flood Risk TRANS5 - Consideration of Development Proposals
|
|
5.2 |
Joint Henley & Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan
TCE1 - Henley Town Centre DQS1 - Local Character |
|
|
|
|
5.3 |
Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents |
|
|
|
|
|
South Oxfordshire Design Guide 2016 (SODG 2016) |
|
|
|
|
5.4 |
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) |
|
|
|
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)
|
|
5.5 |
Other Relevant Legislation |
|
|
Human Rights Act 1998 The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into account in the processing of the application and the preparation of this report. |
|
|
Equality Act 2010 In determining this planning application the Council has regard to its equalities obligations including its obligations under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. |
|
|
National Planning Policy Framework Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) |
|
6.0 |
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS |
|
6.1 |
The relevant planning considerations are the following:
· Current policy · Design and character · Biodiversity & protected species · Flood risk · Inclusive access · Residential amenity · Other material planning considerations
|
|
6.2 |
Current Policy
The Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that, in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building, its setting and / or the wider historic or archaeological environment, the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the area or building, its setting or any features of special architectural or historic interest which either possesses. Paragraphs 189 to 208 of the NPPF reflect this requirement, stating that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated area and / or heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Non-designated heritage assets of archaeological interest, which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to scheduled monuments, should be considered subject to the policies for designated heritage assets.
Section 40 of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 confirms the public authority must, in exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of conserving biodiversity. Paragraphs 174 and 179 to 182 of the NPPF reflect this requirement, stating that when considering the impact of a proposed development on protected features of a habitats site and / or a protected species, the local planning authority shall have special regard to conservation of biodiversity.
Paragraphs 174, 178, 206, 207 of the NPPF recognise the contribution trees, woodland and landscape features make to the intrinsic character of the countryside, settlements and the historic environment and requires that, in considering an application which affects a (protected) tree / landscape feature, the local planning authority should assess the impact of the proposal on the historic character and amenity of the area and whether the proposal is justified, having regard to the reasons and additional information put forward in support of it.
Paragraphs 159 to 169 of the NPPF confirm inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk (whether existing or future). Where development may be appropriate in such areas, the development should be made safe for its lifetime without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Policies ENV12 and E4 of the SOLP 2035 are informed by a strategic flood risk assessment and look to manage flood risk from all sources. For applications made inside of flood zone 3 the local planning authority will have special regard to the cumulative impacts in, or affecting, local areas susceptible to flooding, and take account of advice from the Environment Agency and other relevant flood risk management authorities.
|
|
6.3 |
Design & character : impact on the conservation area & wider historic environment The application site is within Henley Conservation Area and within the setting of the grade I listed Henley Bridge and grade II listed buildings adjacent to the river including the Red Lion Hotel. This part of the conservation area centres around the river and is significant as a place of leisure, trade, transport and for its contribution to the development of Henley. The buildings in this area, many of which are listed contribute to historic views, drawn and photographed of the river, and the understanding of the use and development of the area as well as their individual built fabric interest and associations.
This application is for alterations to a river mooring to make it inclusively accessible. This would create a more visually intrusive piece of infrastructure in order to provide the necessary railings and gradient. It has however been designed to minimise the impact by using locally distinctive materials, avoiding significant trees and so that it rises and falls with the water. As such I am satisfied that the visual impact would be negligible, in keeping with the character and appearance of this part of the conservation area and unharmful to the setting of the surrounding listed buildings.
|
|
6.4 |
On review of the revised scheme submitted to accommodate concerns over river safety navigation the council’s conservation officer notes, the amended proposals on the historic environment would remain as previous. My comments are unchanged. The proposals are in keeping with the riverside character of the conservation area. There would be a negligible visual impact at street level where the railings are proposed to remain as existing, and the ramp would not obstruct views between the bridge and other buildings within the conservation area.
|
|
6.5 |
Design & character : impact on the landscape setting As noted by the council’s forestry officer, the proposed access ramp is within the theoretical root protection area of the mature London plane tree growing to the south. This tree is protected by the conservation area. However, due to the existing site conditions and the relatively light weight structure of the ramp, it is not considered that the construction of the development as proposed would cause any significant harm to the tree.
|
|
6.6 |
Whilst the proposed scheme sees the introduction of a more visually intrusive piece of infrastructure, in the context of the existing moorings along this section of river in my view, it would not significantly alter existing views into and across the rivers edge when viewed from the wider public vantage points inside of the conservation area.
I note the objections raised during the consultation process on the original plans submitted, with regards to the potential for the larger floating pontoon proposed to accommodate river access for larger boats than the existing finger jetties and the resulting impact on the character of the river side larger boats might have, in so far as their capacity to interrupt existing views inside of the conservation area. The revised scheme submitted to accommodate concerns over river safety navigation sees the floating pontoon lost in favour or a finger jetty arrangement not dissimilar to that existing. The arrangement now proposed may accommodate slightly larger boats than existing however, in my opinion when read in relation to the existing use and pattern of development in the area, I do not consider this would result in harm to the existing historic character of the site and riverside location.
|
|
6.7 |
In my opinion the proposals form an appropriate visual relationship with the existing site and would not harm the character or appearance of the plot, setting of the neighbouring listed buildings and Henley Bridge or the wider surrounding conservation area along the banks of the River Thames. The proposal therefore complies with policies STRAT1, DES1, DES2, DES3, ENV1, ENV4, ENV6, ENV7 and ENV8 of the South Oxfordshire Local Plan (SOLP), policy DQS1 of the Joint Henley & Harpsden Neighbourhood Plan (JH&HNP) and technical guidance set out in the South Oxfordshire Design Guide (SODG).
|
|
6.8 |
Biodiversity & protected species Having reviewed the proposed scheme, plans and supporting documents submitted as part of this application the councils ecologist notes, due to the location of the site, off of a main river and close to much anthropogenic disturbance, it is considered very unlikely that this small section of the riverbank supports any protected species. The proposed development would retain the bank, being constructed above it, as shown on section plans. I am mindful of the requirements of Policy ENV4 of the SOLP. The site is surrounded by boat moorings and other forms of development. I do not consider it expedient to apply the 10 metre buffer in this instance and raises no objections to this application on the basis of ecology or biodiversity.
|
|
6.9 |
On review of the revised scheme the Environment Agency has provided a view on the impact of the proposed scheme on fisheries, biodiversity and nature conservation commenting, there is no assessment of the ecological impacts this proposal may have and no photos have been provided to enable us to make an assessment ourselves. We believe the development will not see the loss of natural bank as there is already an existing mooring at this site.
The floating pontoon will, however, result in the permanent shading of the river bed which will prevent aquatic plants from growing, and as such will result in a net loss of biodiversity at the site. Plants provide habitat for fish and insects, and in particular cover for juvenile fish. We request ecological enhancements to mitigate for the permanent shading of the watercourse.
|
|
6.10 |
However, the scheme now proposed makes use of a small finger jetty and no floating pontoon is now proposed. Having reviewed the amended scheme the council’s ecologist is satisfied the development proposed would not impact existing species and their habitats along the existing section of riverbank and where the proposed development does not include the provision of a floating ponton, I consider it would be both unreasonable and unnecessary to attach the suggested ecological enhancement condition to any permission granted under this application for the small finger jetty.
|
|
6.11 |
Flood risk Having reviewed the initial submission, the planning advisor at the Environment agency requested the submission of a FRA and provided the observations below.
The application site is located within Flood Zone 3 according to our Flood Map for Planning. This is defined as areas having a high probability of flooding in accordance with Table 1 ‘Flood Risk’ of the Planning Practice Guidance. Our detailed modelling (Thames (Henley to Hurley 2002)) shows the site to be located within Flood Zone 3b. The proposed mooring and access ramps to the new pontoon will therefore be subject to flooding during a 5% Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) (1 in 20 year) event.
|
|
6.12 |
Having reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment submitted on 25 January 2022 the the EA is satisfied that subject to the suggested compliance condition the proposed development is compatible with its riverside location and would not result in any increased risk of flooding in the area taking into account climate change and projected rising water levels. The proposed scheme accords with policy E4 of the SOLP and paragraphs 159 to 169 of the NPPF.
|
|
6.13 |
Inclusive access Having reviewed the application, the council’s equalities officer raises no objections to the proposed scheme providing information on guidelines for inclusive-mobility in particular for distances an impaired person can walk before needing a rest and suitable surfacing materials. The governments inclusive-mobility document sets out in section 2.4 suggested distances an impaired person can walk before needing a rest as shown in the table pasted below.
The total length of the proposed access ramp from the adjoining highway and down to the point of embarkment measures no more than 30 metres. Taking into account the additional distance required to walk the footpath along the adjoining highway from near by parking bays the walking distance is unlikely to exceed 100 metres making the mooring fully accessible to a large percentage of the population, particularly when compared with the existing arrangement. At the agreement of the agent a condition has been attached to this permission requiring the submission of a full schedule of materials including suitable non-slip finishes for the access foot path.
|
|
6.14 |
Residential amenity Given the scale, design and position of the proposed finger jetty, access ramp, gates and fences, I do not consider that the proposed development would result in any harm to the amenity of the neighboring properties in terms of light, outlook or privacy. The existing site is in use as a mooring for a local boating company and I do not consider the addition of the accessible ramp would result in any significant increase in activity which might result in any measurable increase in noise and nuisance compared with the existing use and arrangements at the site and surrounding area.
|
|
6.15 |
River safety navigation I note the concerns raised during the consultation process, with regards to the impact of the proposed scheme on river safety particular during the regatta season when river traffic is increased. The proposed pontoon sees the boats to be moored at 90 degrees to the existing finger jetties, in contrast to the existing layout along this section of the river where boats are moored at 90 degrees to the highway. As commented by the EA’s River Thames Waterways Team, the originally proposed layout, with floating pontoon, saw boats moored further out into the navigation channel, leading to potential obstructions of river traffic which raised concerns due to the proximity of the mooring to Henley Bridge.
|
|
6.16 |
Amended plans have been provided, which see the loss of the floating pontoon in favour of a shortened finger jetty. Whilst the boats are still to be moored parallel to the riverside, from the arial mapping images I have available to me it is evident that the existing finger jetties allow access for longer boats which project further into the navigation, roughly equal to the layout now proposed.
Originally proposed layout Revised scheme now under consideration Arial mapping image 2015/2018
|
|
6.17 |
On review of the revised scheme the EA’s River Thames Waterways Team comments, following the submission of new plans… it is now clear there are no changes planned for the configuration of the finger moorings. Therefore, the Environment Agency withdraw their objections to this application as it will not impact on Navigation of the river Thames. In light of this, I am satisfied that the development proposed and / or its future use would not present a risk to river navigation safety.
|
|
6.18 |
Planning permission under this application does not grant either an Environmental Permit or Accommodation Licence which are required by and are obtainable from the Environment Agency in order to see the operational development proposed implemented at the site. Where the Environment Agency are the regulating authority for operational uses across the river network, the suitability of the site for the proposed development, in so far as its impact on river safety, is covered by the statutory framework in which they operate and will be considered under the further applications required.
|
|
6.19 |
Other material planning considerations I note the concerns raised with regards to the impact of the development on increased traffic congestion in the area and highways safety. The existing uses at the site are to be retained. I cannot see that the accessible arrangement to the moorings would significantly or demonstrably increase traffic in the area. Traffic is strictly controlled along the adjoining highway to prevent indiscriminate parking. In my view, the proposed development would not significantly increase traffic in the area and would not in itself present any increased risk to highways safety in accordance with policy TRANS5 of the SOLP.
|
|
6.20 |
Policy DES8 of SOLP states that all new development has to demonstrate how they are seeking to reduce greenhouse emissions through location, building orientation, design, landscape and planting. This is a modest proposal for the addition of gates and fences with no scope for reducing greenhouse emissions. |
|
|
|
|
6.21 |
Pre-commencement conditions The applicant has agreed the materials condition recommended below, requiring the submission of details prior to the commencement of development.
|
|
7.0 |
CONCLUSION |
|
7.1 |
The proposal complies with the relevant Development Plan policies and, subject to the attached conditions, the proposed development would be acceptable in terms of its relationship to the character of the banks of the River Thames, its site, setting of the adjacent Grade I listed Henley Bridge and neighbouring listed buildings and the wider historic character of the conservation area. It is also acceptable in terms of its impact on the existing river network and would not result in any increased risk of flooding in the area, |
|
8.0 |
RECOMMENDATION |
|
8.1 |
Grant Planning Permission subject to the following conditions
|
|
|
1 : Commencement three years - Full Planning Permission 2 : Development in accordance with the approved plans 3 : Sample materials to be agreed 4 : Flood mitigation measure - implementation as approved
|
Author: Caitlin Phillpotts
Email: Planning@southoxon.gov.uk
Tel: 01235 422600