Plans for Hambridge Lake chalets between Newbury and Thatcham refused

Plans to build holiday chalets around a lake between Newbury and Thatcham have been refused again on appeal.

The appeal was lodged last year against West Berkshire Council's refusal in March 2020.

The proposal, from Pegasus Group, for the construction of 41 holiday style chalets around the lake on the junction of Hambridge Road and the A4, was was refused by the Planning Inspectorate on November 30.

The applicant stated that the development, which also proposed a clubhouse, access, parking and landscaping, was for recreational and holiday use only.

The application itself was for outline planning permission and access, while appearance, landscaping, layout and scale was reserved for a future application.

The inspectorate's refusal was made on the basis that the benefits of the proposal did not outweigh the “significant” harms found.

The inspector found that the size of the proposal would result in “significant adverse harm to landscape character and visual impact”, specifically in regard to the woodland habitat, foraging and comuting habitat of bats.

It also failed to meet the requirements of development plan policies.

The main issues taken into account by the planning inspectorate were surrounding the effect on the character and appearance of the site, the effect on biodiversity, whether the development is in an appropriate location, the effect on the safety of road users, and whether the proposal would comply with local and national policy.

Site visits and an inquiry were held in April, but the latter was adjourned until mid-September.

The adjournment in April was requested by the applicant for further ecological surveys to be carried out

Following this submission of this new ecological information, the inquiry continued in September..

The lake, which is currently used as a small-scale angling enterprise, is a flooded former gravel pit, where around 25 fishing stations would have been provided around the edge.

There would also have been an access road and associated parking area located within the strips of woodland to the west and north of the lake.

The effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the site and its surrounding area was a consideration, with particular regard to the size of the development, loss of trees and the heritage significance of the Kennet and Avon Canal Conservation Area.

The inspector's report found that the lake and the woodland within the appeal site makes a “significant and positive rural contribution” to the area.

The effect on biodiversity was also factored in, looking specifically at the impact of the proposed tree works.

Around 93 trees would have been lost in the initial proposal, 76 in the amended scheme, which would have taken the total tree loss on this site to around 16.8 per cent.

This was considered as “significant” when the habitat is identified as being of “principal importance for the purpose of conserving biodiversity”.

Though the development was seen to only take up a "relatively small proportion of the wider woodland and lakes habitat", it was found that this would also have a "significant negative impact on the bat population".

The safety of road users who travel through Hambridge Road and the surrounding road network was another issue taken into account.

The initial concern of traffic generation, raised in the first refusal, was dismissed on the basis that moving the existing access from Hambridge Road to a location between the Ham Bridge and the opposite access to Two Rivers Way would not impact the now implemented London Road/Hambridge Road junction improvement scheme.

It was also found that the traffic generation would be relatively small and would not have an unacceptable effect on the safety of road users in this area.

A final matter that was considered by the inspectorate was whether the proposal would comply with local and national policy which seek to steer new developments away from areas at the highest risk of flooding.

It was found that “the harm caused by flood risk is limited”.

Natural England had no objection to the proposal and found that the proposal would not have any likely significant effects on the Kennet and Lambourn floodplains.

The inspector's report from the appeal stated that concerns were raised surrounding the definition of chalets, to which it was indicated that the definition of a chalet can comprise a larger building with several floors sub-divided into smaller units of accommodation.

It was found that West Berkshire does not need “continued investments and job creation from developments of the scale proposed”.