Plans to create new holiday accommodation at Bewl Water have been turned down at appeal.
In a decision notice published earlier this month, a planning inspector has dismissed an appeal connected with proposals to convert the Boat House Bistro — a large detached building on the reservoir’s shore — into 11 holiday apartments.
While the plans had been recommended for approval by officers, the scheme was rejected by Wealden District Council’s Planning Committee North in December due to councillor concerns about its impact on the character of the High Weald National Landscape (HWNL), particularly as a result of both noise and light pollution.
The applicant, Salomons UK Ltd, had sought to address these concerns ahead of the committee hearing, offering amendments intended to reduce light spill from the building. These included a reduction in glazing, the installation of angled louvres and the use of “smart glass” technology.
These amendments were considered by the inspector, but they ultimately judged there to be insufficient evidence of their effectiveness.
In their decision notice, the inspector wrote: “Whilst these appear to be positive amendments, there is no evidence before me on the difference in light spill impact between the existing and proposed use, and whether the smart glass and other measures would address it to an acceptable level.
“Without this, it is difficult to come to an objective conclusion that the proposed smart glass and other measures would be effective in ensuring the HWNL dark skies are not adversely affected by the scheme including a proposed increase in openings on the building’s most prominent elevation within the HWNL.”
The inspector added: “Protecting the status of the HWNL is a matter of considerable
national significance to which I attribute great weight.
“In this regard, I am not satisfied that it has been adequately demonstrated what the extent of light spill from the development would be, and whether it can be controlled through
conditions to a level that would not materially harm the dark skies of the HWNL.
“As a result, the proposal does not accord with the development plan or relevant provisions of the [National Planning Policy] Framework.”
While the inspector dismissed the appeal over the light pollution concerns, they also noted how the other grounds for refusal — noise pollution and general harm to the character of the HWNL — could be mitigated.
The inspector took particular issue with the committee’s decision-making around noise pollution, noting both how the current use of the building is unrestricted and that a condition requiring a noise management plan had been agreed by the applicant.
In their decision notice, the inspector wrote: “The measures designed to control noise and disturbance were clearly articulated in the planning officer’s committee report.
“Overall, it is not clear to me on what rational basis the planning committee rejected the advice before them in terms of how any noise and disturbance would be controlled.
“I find, therefore, that this part of the reason for refusal was unreasonable albeit noting that its omission would not have resulted in planning permission being granted. Nonetheless, the applicant has had to incur costs in addressing this issue in their appeal submissions.”
In light of this, the inspector awarded the applicant partial costs at the expense of the council.
