Issue - meetings

            That the application be refused as the creation of new access points consisting of the erection of wooden gates and the loss of 18 metres of mature hedgerow would have a detrimental effect upon the character of the open countryside and the green barrier in this location contrary to policies GEN3 and GEN4.                 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23^rd May 2016.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. 

                        The officer detailed the background to the report and explained that this was an application for a new vehicular access for plots 2, 3 and 4.  If permitted it would mean that there were four points of access to the site.  The day rooms would remain in the same positions but the static caravan on plot 2 would need to be re-sited if the application was approved.  The owner of plot 5 had submitted an appeal following refusal of an application in February 2016 for an access to that plot only and the reasons for refusal were reported in paragraph 7.06.  Approval of the application for accesses for plots 2, 3 and 4 would require the removal of two sections of hedge both nine metres in width and the insertion of two pairs of wooden gates and a close boarded fence would be erected behind the existing roadside hedgerow within the site.  A condition would also be imposed to ensure that the remaining hedge was enhanced to screen the boundary fencing.  The officer advised that there were no objections from Highways colleagues subject to conditions reported at paragraph 3.01 and therefore the application was recommended for approval. 

                        Mr. J. Golledge spoke against the application.  He indicated that he was a member of Northop Hall Community Council but that the comments he was making today reflected his own views.  He objected to the application on the grounds that it did not comply with the recommendations and conditions of two separate planning appeals.  The application for the site had been approved by the appeal Inspector despite it being recognised by the Inspector that the site would have an impact on the green barrier and an urbanising effect on the open countryside.  However, the report failed to acknowledge the fact that at the appeal hearing, the Inspector had stated that all trees and hedgerow should be retained in the course of construction and the applicant had committed to improve the screening.  Mr. Golledge said that maintenance of the natural screening was important to local residents and failure to recognise this in the report to the Committee was a serious omission.  The Inspectors at both hearings had required the retention of the hedgerow and natural screening and any breach of the natural screening therefore contravened this.  He felt that had these accesses been required they should have been taken into account when considering the application for the site on appeal and Mr. Golledge felt that they would have a harmful impact on the rural environment. 

                        Mr. M. Nickson, Landscape Architect for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He indicated that the five plot site under construction already had planning permission and would be built so it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7