Essentially this application encompassed four separate and distinct developments and should, ideally, have been determined on that basis. It also generated no fewer than 156 objections, a significant number by any measure and, as a result, the application went before the Development Management Committee at the request of the Head of Development Management: 'due to the level of public interest'.

Amongst the objectors were the Parish Council, who believed 'the impact of each element on the AONB means this application should be 4 separate applications'. The proposed beach toilets, they said, were too large. The replacement sewage plant was welcome. The Residents/Mooring Holders car park was, they thought, in conflict with TP 1.5 of the Neighbourhood Plan as it would harm the AONB. And they believed the introduction of pay stations and their necessary signage ('Pay Here’, 'Instructions for use' etc) would create a serious intrusion to the views across one of the most sensitive parts of the AONB and the site of an ancient monument, meaning even when empty the green field area will appear commercialised and developed.

Our objection echoed many of those points. The car park extension area had been a construction pound since 2018 and was controlled by planning conditions requiring the compound to be removed once construction concluded and to then provide biodiversity gain. We saw no justification for the installation of Paystations and associated signage into the open parking site area, considering the increase in payment facilities to be linked to a permanent car park expansion across the Scheduled Monument site. We also thought an increase of 60% in the footprint of the toilet block excessive. And we were of the view that it should be possible to restrict the access road to the sewage plant to its current location once the existing sewage infrastructure was removed.

Unfortunately, all to no avail. The case officer concluded her report: 'The principle of the proposal is considered to be acceptable, with the development responding to a proven need which requires a countryside location within the Undeveloped and Heritage Coast. Subject to conditions, it is considered that the impacts on landscape (including the AONB, Heritage and Undeveloped Coast), ecology, trees, drainage, neighbour amenity and highways are acceptable.'

She recommended approval. However on 13 September 2023 the Development Management Committee demurred and, by five votes to two, chose to refuse the application on the grounds that:

The expansion into and erosion of a greenfield site to provide the proposed car park, and the increase in size of the replacement toilet block, would have adverse impacts on the landscape character and scenic and visual qualities of the area. The development also fails to protect, maintain and enhance the unique landscape character and special qualities of the Undeveloped and Heritage Coast, with no exceptional circumstances to permit the development, and also fails to conserve and enhance the natural beauty of the South Devon Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, which is afforded the highest degree of protection.

Six months later, an appeal was submitted to the Planning Inspectorate. That appeal has now been dismissed, the Planning Inspector concluding:

the proposal would harm the character and appearance of the area and there are no exceptional circumstances to permit the development.