Issue - meetings

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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22