Agenda item

Full Application - Proposed Individual Vehicular Access Points for Plots 2, 3 & 4 of Previously Consented Gypsy Site at Magazine Lane, Ewloe (054322)

Decision:

            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.                 

 

Minutes:

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 23rd 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 was effectively part of the community.  This application would provide secondary access points and would mean the removal of two sections of hedgerow and the addition of access drives and timber gates.  He commented on the countryside views to the north which would be unaffected by the application and spoke of what could be seen to the south of the site and it was therefore felt that this application would not interfere with the open countryside character of the area.  The proposal had been sympathetically designed in materials already approved as part of the boundary treatment which would not alter if this application was approved.  The accesses had been grouped together to reduce their impact and to mitigate the removal of two sections of hedgerow, a landscape scheme would be produced and would assist in improving the habitat for local wildlife.  On the issue of safety and nuisance, Mr. Nickson said that there was currently only one access in and out of the site and therefore secondary accesses would reduce the risks to residents of the site in cases of emergency.  It would also reduce the nuisance from headlights of vehicles returning to the site during unsociable hours and would improve the access to the site by emergency vehicles if the original access was blocked.  He implored the Committee to consider the safety of the residents in their deliberations on the application. 

 

                        The Local Member, Councillor Dave Mackie, spoke against the application.  He said that this was an exception site in the green barrier and reiterated the earlier comments by Mr. Golledge that the inspector had included a condition to retain the trees and hedgerow during construction as he had indicated that screening of the site was important.  Councillor Mackie said that creating the new openings would damage the screening and suggested that the previously approved plans showed fences around each plot which mitigated the headlight issue referred to by Mr. Nickson.  He also added that most residential homes did not have a secondary access and therefore as the proposals conflicted with the Inspector’s condition to retain the trees, he suggested that the application should be refused.  Having earlier declared an interest, Councillor Mackie left the chamber prior to the discussion.        

 

                        Councillor Ian Dunbar proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  He stated that at the site visit it had been pointed out to Members where the accesses would be and it was reported that the remaining hedge would be enhanced to screen the boundary fencing.  He felt that the extra access was necessary to assist in access by any emergency vehicles.  Councillor Dunbar referred to the criteria that was set by Welsh Government on the provision of Gypsy sites and suggested that it was important to consider the site, which was away from other properties, in a sensible way. 

 

                        In referring to the appeal decision that was awaited for the access to plot 5 and the remarks of the Inspector which he felt were a material consideration, Councillor Gareth Roberts said that he was bemused by the recommendation to grant the application.  He commented on the reason of secondary access but spoke of many residential developments that only had one access in and out.  He also expressed concern that it was commented by Mr. Nickson that the removal of the hedge would not have an effect on the landscape.  Councillor Roberts said that the site was in the green barrier and he could therefore see no reason to support approval of the application. 

 

                        Councillor Mike Peers highlighted the recommendation where it was reported that the proposed additional accesses and the proposed gates were not considered to have any significant harm to the impact of the site on the green barrier; he disagreed with this statement.  He welcomed the comments of the Local Member, Councillor Mackie, particularly on the conditions referred to by the Inspector for the retention of the hedgerow.  In drawing Members’ attention to paragraph 7.06 where the refusal reason for plot 5 at the 24th February 2016 meeting of the Committee was reported, he said that it was a similar application to what was before Members today.  He expressed significant concern at the removal of 18 metres of hedgerow and highlighted the comments in paragraph 7.11 that a condition could be imposed to ensure that the remaining hedge was enhanced to screen the boundary fencing.  Councillor Peers referred to, and expressed concern about, the provision of the close boarded fences and the gates.  He did not feel that the requirement for secondary accesses because of the nuisance caused by headlights was a planning consideration and he also spoke of developments in his ward with one access in and out.  He suggested that the requirement for access by emergency services was not plausible and said that one access had been approved by the Inspector with the inclusion of a condition to enhance the remaining hedging.  He added that he could not support approval of the application.  

 

                        Councillor Richard Jones said that he had considered the remarks of the Inspector that the site was well screened and therefore views into the site were limited.  He said that the Inspector had carefully determined the weight attached to his decision and the inclusion of conditions when considering how the site was viewed from the road and Councillor Jones felt that any changes to that could have a detrimental impact on the area and may have changed the appeal decision if they had been put forward at the time.  He spoke of the piecemeal way that the decision of the Inspector was being changed which he felt was wrong and added that, in his opinion, the application should be refused. 

 

                        Councillor Owen Thomas referred to the first of many visits to the site and the fact that at that time, the A55 could not be seen because of the amount of vegetation in place. However, on the visit earlier in the week, the A55 could clearly be seen due to removal of a large amount of hedging.  He felt that the provision of wooden fences did not constitute a hedge and suggested that the site would never blend into the countryside.  Councillor Thomas indicated that at least one caravan on the site was being lived in and queried whether this was being considered by the Enforcement Team.  He concurred that consideration of the application should be deferred until the appeal had been determined and the decision known. 

 

                        On the issue of deferment, the officer advised that there was a duty to consider the application in a reasonable time and that not considering it would allow the applicant to appeal on the grounds of non-determination.  The Development Manager concurred and said that a report would need to be submitted to this Committee to establish the stance to be taken at any such appeal.  In urging the Members to make a decision on the proposals, he said that it was the view of officers that there was no reason to defer the application.  The Service Manager Strategy said that Members needed to determine the application before them and that they needed to take account of what harm the proposals would have on the area.  On the references to the green barrier, the Inspector had recognised that there would be an impact but the need for more Gypsy and Traveller sites outweighed that harm. 

 

                        In summing up, Councillor Dunbar concurred that a non-determination appeal was an option for the applicant if the decision was deferred.  He added that issues such as drainage and the provision of enhancing the hedgerow had been addressed. 

 

                        On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was LOST.  In response to a request from officers for a reason for refusal, Councillor Roberts said that the outcome of the appeal for the access to plot 5 was not yet known and that was a material consideration for the determination of this application.  The Service Manager Strategy said that the refusal must be based on sound planning reasons which identified the planning harm that approving the application would cause.  Councillor Peers suggested that it should 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’. 

 

                        On being put to the vote, the reason for refusal was CARRIED.   

 

            RESOLVED:

 

            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. 

 

                        After the vote had been taken, Councillor Mackie did not return to the Chamber.       

 

Supporting documents: