Issue - meetings

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of detrimental impact on the character of the open countryside and green barrier and that the application did not comply with policies GEN3 & 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 22 February 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 the application was for a new vehicular access for plot 5 only.  The application had been deferred from the October 2015 meeting of the Committee to allow a site visit to take place and to consider whether an application relating to the other points should be considered at the same time.  The agents of both parties had been encouraged to submit an application for the whole site to consider all of the proposed changes to the site but they had been unwilling to do so.  Proposals for other separate accesses on the site were still being considered and were not yet ready to come forward.  The application had an impact on the layout of the whole site as it moved the amenity buildings and relocated the static caravans and it was therefore decided that the application could not be considered in that format.  However, this proposal was now ready for consideration by Members.  The overall ‘red line’ area for the application before the Committee today had been amended to retain the turning head so if this application was approved, the application could go ahead and the rest of the site could still conform with the existing planning permission.  Therefore Members needed to consider what the proposed harm was to the green barrier for the access proposed as part of this application only and the subsequent application on the agenda for the re-siting of the proposed amenity building. 

            Mr. J. Gollege spoke against the application.  He indicated that he was a member of Northop Hall Community Council but that the comments he was making today were 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 Committee refused permission twice but it was approved on appeal by the Planning Inspector on the grounds of need despite the site being on green barrier land.  The point was reported in 7.05 of the officer’s report as being recognised by the appeal Inspector but failed to acknowledge the fact that at the first appeal hearing, the Inspector stated there was harm through inappropriateness in conflict with policy GEN4 and there was harm to the open character and appearance of the green barrier.  Condition 12 of the second appeal hearing stated that all trees and hedgerow should be retained in the course of construction.  As part of the appeal submission, the applicant had committed to improve the screening.  Mr. Gollege said that maintenance of the natural screening was important to local residents and failure to recognise this in the report to Committee was a serious omission.  The Inspectors at both hearings had required  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126