Agenda item

That determination of the application be deferred to allow officers to look at possible conditions including one requiring management of the development site to avoid conflict with the use of the bridleway. 

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 18 June 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 detailed the background to the report and drew Members’ attention to the late observations and advised Members that the figure in the final sentence of paragraph 7.26 should read £15.9 M not £15,300.  A similar application had been granted temporary permission in April 2011 in order for the impact of the development upon highway, horse and rider safety and usage of the bridleway to be monitored.  He detailed some of the responses that had been received following consultation and advised that nine letters of objection had been received; he also detailed the objections put forward by the British Horse Society.  One serious accident had been reported to the Flintshire Local Access Forum when a rider had been thrown from a horse which had bolted.  The main issues for consideration were detailed at paragraph 1.01 and included the effects upon the users of the bridleway, the impact on the setting of the listed building, and the economic implications.  The officer added that, if the application was approved, it would be the equivalent of closing the bridleway when the spherering was taking place and therefore the recommendation was one of refusal.        

Mrs. A. Chamberlain spoke against the application, saying that in her opinion the site was in the wrong place.  She said that no amount of screening would solve the problem faced by those using the bridleway.  She said that she was an experienced rider horse owner and that the earlier reference to a rider being thrown from a horse had been to her.  She said that the bridleway could not be used at weekends or in the school holidays because of the activity taking place.  The sphereing activity could be relocated, the bridleway could not.  The development site had increased the amount of traffic in the area and she felt that the lane was not suitable for extra traffic.  The equine database showed that there were 5,300 horses registered in Flintshire and as a result nearly £16m was brought by horse owners into Flintshire’s economy every year.  She felt that sphereing did not bring tourism to the area as the vast majority of users of the site were day trippers.  She asked Members to turn down the application.

Mr. R. Wotton, the applicant, spoke in support of the application and provided details of the company’s background explaining that the site was only open for one to two days per week and employed ten local staff.  He said that many tourists stayed in the area, purchased local produce and revisited each year.  He detailed the gift websites where tickets for the sphereing activity could be purchased, and which showcased Flintshire.  He said that he had been a horse rider for 40 years, had spent time in the Household Cavalry and so knew how horses behaved.  He said that one or two horses used the bridleway when sphereing was in operation; he was willing to keep the ball away from the bridleway when riders wanted to use it.  He spoke of press coverage which he said had reported a problem about the area of the ball launch, of which he was not aware.  Other sites operated next to riding schools without any problems being caused.

Councillor P.G. Heesom proposed approval of the application, against officer recommendation, for a period of five years, which was duly seconded. 

Councillor R.C. Bithell said that it would appear that Members were being asked to decide between horse riders and sphereing.  It was reported that the Tourism Manager supported the application as it was a scheme which allowed more diverse activities to boost the economy.  It was operating successfully and Councillor Bithell referred to the late observations and the comments from Councillor D. Williams who had indicated that in his experience, the operators were very strict on health and safety matters and that the site was very well run.  He said that it had also been noticeable that when groups of riders wanted to pass, the event stopped until all horses and riders were clear.  Councillor Bithell said that he could see no reason to refuse the application but asked if it was possible to move the area where the ball was used slightly to the left of its current location. 

The local member, Councillor C. Dolphin, spoke against the application.  He said that the Committee had heard from an expert witness about horses and also heard an emotive statement from the applicant.  He said that he had spoken to the Tourism Manager to request figures relevant to the issue. He said that the company’s website did not advertise any local establishments, particularly in Holywell.  The activity was in its third year on the site as it ran for the first year of operation without planning permission.  He said that this was an enforcement-generated application which had been granted for one year to look at the impact on the bridleway.  He said that the Environment Directorate, planners and British Horse Society had urged that the application be refused.  The Tourism Manager’s reported comments in support were subject to a proviso.  If the original proposal had been the subject of a planning application in advance, it would have been refused as being contrary to policy.  Councillor Dolphin felt that the application did not comply with policy GEN1, STR2 and STR7 and was in the wrong location.  He highlighted paragraph 7.23 where it was reported that, if planning permission was granted, it would be the equivalent of closing the bridleway at weekends and holidays.  He asked the Committee to refuse the application.   

Councillor M.J. Peers said that temporary permission had been granted to see how it impacted upon the bridleway and its users.  He noted the recommendation of the officer that the application was contrary to policy and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and took note of the local Member and the comments in paragraph 7.23.  He said that he did not feel that the bridleway should be closed because of this activity and added that he was minded to refuse the application.  However, he felt that a further one year of operation could be approved to allow the operators to find an alternative site but if they did not, then the site should be closed at the end of that period.  The proposal was duly seconded.

Councillor P.G. Heesom then suggested an amendment to his proposal so that the temporary permission would be for three years.

Councillor D. Butler felt that the bridleway should be safeguarded but pointed out that many bridleways in Cheshire had gates to prevent horses and riders coming into contact with other activities and added that the site could be screened.  He said that diversification should be welcomed and that Whitford Community Council had not objected to the application.  He also referred to the late observations sheet which reported that an alternative route had been used during the Mostyn Fun Ride which was away from the launch pad area; he felt that this would be a solution to the issues raised. 

Councillor W.O. Thomas said that there was a need to encourage tourism into the area but that to put the activity next to the bridleway was not a good mix. 

The officer said that the recommendation had been made based on the comments from consultees, particularly the Rights of Way Officer and the British Horse Society.  On the comment made by Councillor Bithell about moving the activity to the left, it would still mean that the launch pad was in close proximity to the bridleway.  Highways did not have any objections to the application and screening would not be appropriate as it would take a large amount of screening which would take time to become established. 

Councillor Heesom said that it was not a planning matter to decide between users but that the management of the site was a material consideration.  He questioned whether there was any demonstrable harm to the open countryside.  No consultee responses were prejudicial, but he requested that proposed conditions be considered particularly in relation to the management of the site and reiterated his proposal for further temporary consent. 

The Principal Solicitor said that it was important to bear in mind that the public bridleway had the status of a highway which walkers, horses and cyclists were entitled to use at all times without interruption, whereas the proposed development related to a private use of land. 

Councillor Bithell asked if it was possible to condition that the sphereing stop when a horse and rider were using the bridleway. 

The Principal Solicitor suggested that a management scheme could be submitted but added that a condition might be difficult to enforce. 

Councillor R.B. Jones proposed deferment of the application to consider conditions about the management of the site; the proposal was duly seconded.  The Principal Solicitor detailed the order in which Members would vote on the proposals put forward. 

In response to Councillor Peers’ proposal, the Head of Planning advised Members that there would be nothing to stop the applicant submitting another application and that it could not be determined now that the application would be refused.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was LOST.

The Committee then voted on the amendment by Councillor Jones to defer the application in order to consider conditions on the management of the site to avoid conflict between the application site and the bridleway.  On being put to the vote, the proposal was CARRIED.         

RESOLVED:

That determination of the application be deferred to allow officers to look at possible conditions including one requiring management of the development site to avoid conflict with the use of the bridleway.