Agenda item

            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Heesom drew Members’ attention to the site history on page 89 where it was reported that application 047095 had been withdrawn in October 2010.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 was.  However, he asked whether, as the development was in a different ownership, it could legally be deemed to be an existing facility.  In response, the Democracy & Governance Manager said that the land ownership was a private legal matter and should not be taken into account by Members when considering the application.  The Interim Team Leader (Policy) said that there was a clear link with the existing facility and that this application provided a follow-on facility so it was felt that the proposal was acceptable.  

Councillor D. Butler raised concern about the land use and felt that the scale and size of the development would be difficult to control in the future.  He also queried whether alternative sites had been considered.  Councillor R.B. Jones raised concern about there only being 17 conditions included in the report but there being 19 in the draft conditions. 

            The officer said that historically there had always been the presumption that the buildings were permanent but could give the appearance of temporary structures and added that this formed part of the appeal in October 2007.  The subsequent application (045395) had been designed in a similar way so that if there was a change of circumstances, the buildings could be removed without the need for significant groundworks.  The intention for this development was to put down a concrete base and to construct a metal structure on top.  In response to the comments from Councillor Butler, the officer advised that a sequential test had been undertaken by the applicant.  The officer referred Members to point iv in paragraph 7.20 where it was reported that alternative sites had been considered but were unacceptable in practical terms and were not economically viable given remedial costs involved. 

In summing up, Councillor Heesom said that the facilities were not linked and raised concern on the comments of the officer on temporary nature of the current buildings on the site.  He said that this would be a permanent building and that a permanent brownfield site was being created.  He added that the application should be refused on the grounds of permanent development in the open countryside which was detrimental to the character of the area.  

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

            RESOLVED:

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