Issue - meetings

            That the application be refused on the grounds of the application being detrimental to the character of the area and the landscape. 

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application which had been the subject of a site visit on 23 July 2012.  The usual consultations had been undertaken and the responses received detailed in the report. Additional comments received since the preparation of the report were circulated at the meeting.

                        The officer highlighted paragraphs 7.09 and 7.10 which detailed the proposal and he added that the majority of the development was on the lower part of the Kinsale site. 

                        Ms. A. Dishman, spoke in support of the application and said that there was currently very limited provision for adults with autism.  The proposal would develop a facility to allow them to work with a structure appropriate to their needs with the main focus being a tourist facility which people with autism would manage with co-workers.  Adults with autism would be placed at the facility and funded by local authorities.  The site would employ 100 local people as support workers and to work on the site and she felt that the service was much needed. 

            The local Member, Councillor P.G. Heesom, proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.

            Councillors C.M. Jones and R.C. Bithell sought advice from the Democracy & Governance Manager about whether, in view of Ms. Dishman’s comments, they had to declare an interest in the application and a short adjournment took place for advice to be provided.   Following the adjournment, Councillors Bithell and Jones indicated that they were declaring a personal interest in the application.  Councillor A.M. Halford queried why she had been advised that she had a personal and prejudicial interest in agenda item 5.4 and the Democracy & Governance Manager advised accordingly. 

            Councillor Heesom drew Members’ attention to the site history on page 89 where it was reported that application 047095 had been withdrawn in October 2010.  He felt that the application was unauthorised development in the open countryside and did not comply with policies GEN 3 and GEN 4.  Councillor Heesom said that there was no need for this facility in the area and that what was proposed was not in keeping with what was already on the site. 

            Councillor Halford concurred with the comments about the site being in the open countryside and that it should not be permitted because of this.  Councillor M.J. Peers highlighted paragraph 7.10 where it was reported that two of the four accommodation blocks were already consented but were proposed to be re-sited.  In response, the officer said that permission had been granted on appeal for a tourist related development including 78 holiday lodges and application 045395 proposed the removal of 30 of the previously approved lodges.  He provided details of where the four accommodation blocks would be sited if the application was permitted. 

            Councillor R.C. Bithell said that certain developments could be permitted in the open countryside and referred Members to paragraph 7.14 where the exclusions were detailed; they included an extension to an existing facility which this application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46