Agenda item

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of unacceptable use within this area of open countryside designated as green barrier which would lead to coalescence and erosion of the open character. 

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 8 October 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 the main issues to be considered and drew Members’ attention to the late observations where the matters raised at the site visit were addressed.  She felt that the application did not cause unacceptable harm to the open countryside location and therefore approval of the application was recommended. 

            Mrs. J. Angell spoke against the application on behalf of residents.  She said that the application site was outside the settlement boundary of Ewloe.  She felt that it was not in accordance with the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and that there was no need for the development in its entirety, although some elements were acceptable.  Although she acknowledged that some controlled development might be suitable within green barriers, she considered that the overall development did not fall within any of the acceptable categories.  The proposed development would harm the openness of the green barrier and she asked whether there had been compliance with the conditions of the sale of the land at auction.  Mrs. Angell also queried whether it was a requirement for the land to be advertised for 12 months before the change of use could be considered.    

One of the ward Members, Councillor A.M. Halford, proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She thanked the officer for her report which she felt was methodical and thorough.  The report indicated that the application would be good for tourism and she felt that the facilities were greatly needed and would bring business to the shops and other establishments in Ewloe.  

In seconding the proposal, Councillor J. Falshaw said that the development would benefit the local economy and provided for the retention of two buildings on the site.

Councillor D.I. Mackie, the other ward Member, spoke against the application.  He said that any development in the green barrier should not harm its open character and appearance as detailed in Policy GEN 4.  He referred to an earlier application for an access which had been dismissed on appeal in October 2010 where the Inspector considered that a 5.5m wide access with 10m. radii would represent an urbanising and incongruent feature that would be harmful to the character and appearance of the surrounding rural area and therefore conflicted with policies in the UDP.  Councillor Mackie said that even though the Inspector’s comments could be viewed in two ways, he felt that the application should be refused for the same reasons.  He urged Members to do so.  Councillor Mackie, having earlier declared an interest in the application, left the meeting prior to its discussion. 

Councillor P.G. Heesom urged the Committee to take the advice of Councillor Mackie and refuse the application. He said that the scale of the proposed development was way beyond what was credible in the open countryside.  The application amounted to a new dwelling in the countryside and in the green barrier and, if permitted, would destroy any credibility in the Council’s policies. 

Councillor W.O. Thomas said that the land had not been advertised commercially for 12 months as policy required and queried whether there was a need for such a facility.  He said that the applicant did not own all of the land and that the owner of part of the site was not aware of the application.  The previous application had been dismissed by the Inspector and Councillor Thomas felt that the advice of the Inspector should be taken and this application refused for the same reasons. 

Councillor H.G. Roberts said that if this application was approved, it would allow other applications to come forward for caravan sites in the open countryside and green barrier, and would contribute to the coalescence of communities.  He added that there were several other fishing establishments in the area and he felt that the correct decision would be to refuse the application. 

Councillor R.G. Hampson felt that tourism should be encouraged into the area and that the application met highway requirements and should be supported. 

In referring to an application which had been permitted earlier on the agenda, Councillor R.C. Bithell raised concern about consistency in determining applications.  The earlier application had related to the diversification of an existing farm business: this site had been bought speculatively.  He also queried why the earlier application had been conditioned to open for 11 months of the year when this application was only being recommended to open for eight months from 1 March to 31 October. 

Councillor D. Butler commented that the proposal was neither a diversification nor ancillary to a farm and queried why the business information had been included in the planning application.  He asked whether the Economic Development officers had considered the information.  He also raised concern about the funding for the enterprise as detailed within the report. 

In response to the comments made, the officer said that the appropriate notice had been served on the owner of part of the site.  The four month closure per year had been requested by the applicant as part of the application.  The business plan had been submitted as part of the planning application. 

The Development Manager said that the previous application had been dismissed by the Inspector because the access improvements were considered to go beyond what was required for agricultural use.  Following this the applicant had been advised to submit details of his proposals for tourist use and this was the context for the current application. He said that with regard to policy, tourism developments of this type could be permitted in the green barrier, citing a similar but far larger facility in Sealand.  He added that if it was accepted that the principle was acceptable, then each of the elements of the development met the requirements of the relevant policies.  Although vacant, the authorised use of the land and buildings was agricultural and it would inevitably be used for some commercial purpose in compliance with policy.  The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that there were no objections to the application, adding that a significant amount of work had been undertaken to design the access. 

In summing up, Councillor A.M. Halford raised concern about some of the comments made by Members.  She said that there were exceptions to the green barrier policy which allowed certain development and that this application would bring tourism to the area. 

On being put to the vote, the proposal to approve the application was LOST. 

Councillor P.G. Heesom felt that the reason for refusal should be that the application was unacceptable development in the green barrier and open countryside.  Councillor H.G. Roberts added that it could lead to coalescence and erosion of the open character. 

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be refused on the grounds of unacceptable use within this area of open countryside designated as green barrier which would lead to coalescence and erosion of the open character.