Agenda item

            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 the retention of the hedgerow and natural screening and any breach of the natural screening therefore contravened this.  The access requested in the application should have been included in the original site design and raised at the public inquiry.  Any special considerations had been taken into account when granting the application on appeal and Mr. Gollege felt that the personal requirements by the applicant would have a harmful impact on the rural area.  Removing the hedgerow even by 4.5 metres would not improve the natural screening.    

            Councillor Derek Butler proposed refusal of the application, against officer recommendation, which was duly seconded.  He said that his main concern was that the hedge was being removed which was against the decision of the appeal Inspector.  He also felt that this would result in more water in the ditch.  He did not feel that there was a valid need for a second access point and felt that the site should remain as granted on appeal with one access/egress for the whole site.  Councillor Owen Thomas spoke of his concern that when the Committee had first visited the site, the A55 had been behind a bund and trees but on this visit, the A55 had clearly been visible.  He also raised concern about noise on the site and commented that it was reported that the ditch had been cleared of vegetation; he added that it was proposed that the ditch would be filled in to allow the creation of the access.  He commented on the hedgerow regulations of 1997 and queried why this had not been adhered to.  The appeal Inspector had indicated that the hedgerow should be retained and that there should only be one access and therefore this proposal did not comply with the Inspector’s decision. 

            The Local Member, Councillor Dave Mackie, indicated that he had previously declared an interest, so he would speak for three minutes and then leave the chamber prior to the discussion of the application.  He indicated that both applications had been deferred from the October 2015 meeting on the advice of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment).  He quoted from the minutes of that meeting where it was reported that officers felt that the application for the access for this site and the proposal requesting individual accesses for plots 2, 3 and 4 should be considered at the same time and it was intended that all the applications should be considered at the same committee meeting.  Councillor Mackie indicated that the other application was still being considered and the wording for this application was identical to that reported to Committee in October 2015 and he therefore requested that this application should be deferred.  The Inspector had granted approval of the site on appeal and his condition 12.2 stated that all existing trees, hedgerows and other vegetation should be retained.  Councillor Mackie felt that creating an opening for the proposed new access would clearly damage the screening and should be avoided and as mentioned earlier, there was potential for an additional three openings if the other application was approved.  He queried why there was a need for a new opening when the site road provided access and had already been approved.  He added that two accesses may prove dangerous particularly to playing children with the possibility of vehicles approaching from different directions.  He asked the Committee to reject the application and thereby retain all the screening.  Councillor Mackie then left the chamber for the remainder of the discussion on the application. 

            Councillor Chris Bithell said that the site was originally granted planning permission with one access for the five pitches.  This application had now been submitted for an additional access for one pitch and he suggested that approval of the application would set a precedent.  He felt that the hedgerow would disappear if individual accesses were permitted and said that the original permission should be adhered to.  Councillor Mike Peers felt that the proposal had no planning merit and was only for the personal gain of the applicant.  He raised concern at the suggestion that only 4.5 metres of hedgerow had been removed as he felt that it should all have been retained as reflected in the appeal Inspector’s decision.  The report at paragraph 7.03 referred to a single point of access with an internal access road within the site serving each plot and he felt that what was being requested in this application was unnecessary and unjustified.  It was reported in paragraph 7.11 that there was no planning reason to refuse the application but Councillor Peers felt that there would be a significant impact on the environment.  He suggested that the application should be refused and the removed hedge replaced.  Councillor Richard Jones referred to paragraph 7.05 where it was reported that the need for more gypsy and traveller sites outweighed the harm to the green barrier.  He felt that this proposal was changing how the original decision had been made and changed how the Inspector valued the green barrier.  He suggested that if this application had been submitted to an appeal Inspector, it would not have been allowed on appeal.  Councillor Jones felt that changes to conditions and the site had been drip-fed to Committee to get the applicant to the stage that they were originally seeking and he felt that this was inappropriate and should be stopped by refusal of this application.  Councillor Gareth Roberts referred to the need to ensure that the ditch was cleared further down as it had been filled in to generate the access to the site.  He said that it had also been noted that nearly all of the hedgerow had been removed and queried whether it could be conditioned that the hedge be restored. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer indicated that the applicant had stated that he required this individual access as he did not have a right to the main access into the site.  There had been a need to consider the highway and planning impacts of the proposal and these issues had been addressed in the report.  On the issue of noise raised by Councillor Thomas, the officer advised that the bund had been included as part of the application and had therefore not previously been in place.  Additional planting had also been included on the bund and a condition had been included to ensure that the existing ditch was culverted and that a scheme was submitted and approved by the planning authority.  A landscaping condition would also ensure that the hedging would be retained.  On the issue of whether this application set a precedent, the officer indicated that each application should be considered on its own merits.  Councillor Peers had also queried why it was reported that ‘only’ 4.5m of hedgerow was being removed and the officer explained that in some instances all of the hedgerow would have needed to be removed to obtain the relevant visibility splay but in this instance only 4.5 metres was required to be removed. 

            The Planning Strategy Manager said that the setting of a precedent was not a good reason to refuse an application and that each application should be considered on its own merits.  He provided clarification that the green barrier did not necessarily convey protection to hedgerows but indicated that the importance of the green barrier was to retain its openness and said that Members should consider whether the limits of the balance suggested by the Inspector had been reached. 

            Councillor Peers proposed that the hedgerow be reinstated.  In response to an earlier comment by Councillor Thomas on the hedgerow regulations 1997, the Housing and Planning Solicitor said that the separate regulation was not material to the consideration of this application. 

            In summing up, Councillor Butler raised concern that the rationale for the recommendation of approval was that the applicant did not have the right of access to his plot through the main access.  He stated that the Inspector had not given permission for five landlocked houses and he could not see the reason for the extra access.  He felt that the limits of the balance suggested by the Inspector had been reached and that all of the relevant information had been considered by the appeal Inspector at the public inquiry and he had made his decision accordingly.  Councillor Butler felt that the application should be refused on the grounds of visibility, loss of the environment and it had not been proved that the applicant would be landlocked if the application was refused. 

            On being put to the vote, the proposal to refuse the application, against officer recommendation, was CARRIED unanimously.                       

            RESOLVED:

            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.           

After the vote had been taken, Councillor Mackie returned to the meeting and the Chairman advised him of the decision.