Agenda item

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

• visual impact
• highway safety issues on the wider road network
• the existing permission not being fully implemented and should not therefore release any more land
• setting a precedent for unjustified development in the open countryside

The Committee considered the report of the Head of Planning in respect of this application.  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 reminded Members that the application had been deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 5 September 2012 to allow consultations with Whitford Community Council and Councillor C. Dolphin to take place. 

            Mr. T.M. Bond, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the application was in accordance with Policy T4 in the UDP.  The golf club already had permission for 15 units with six timber-clad units having been sold and the remaining nine for sale for long-term private ownership.  That development had not provided that anticipated level of income.  The applicant now wished to attract tourists seeking holiday lets to the site and was seeking permission for a second site to be marketed for letting for short breaks.  The golf club had put in a significant investment to bring tourism into the area and it was felt that the caravans would be used by those also wanting to play golf.  Mr. Bond said that Highways had raised no objections to the application, visual impact had been carefully addressed through screening and the development would not affect residential amenity. 

            Mr. B. Hughes spoke against the application as a representative of Whitford Community Council.  He felt that the use of the narrow roads in the area by those using the golf club was a problem.  There was no bus service in the area and no shops, with the nearest town being 2.5 miles away.  Mr. Hughes said that the applicant did not own the entrance or driveway to the site and that the owner had not given his permission for its use.  He said that tourism was important but not at the expense of losing green fields in the area.  The Council had approved a barn conversion and new riding stables nearby which had increased the level of traffic on the surrounding roads.

            Councillor P.G. Heesom moved refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that there was a need to look at the policy of caravans in the open countryside and said that the site was very exposed and impossible to screen.  Only six of the permitted 15 spaces had been used on the other part of the golf club and he felt that the application was premature or speculative.  In referring to the “Proposed Development” section of the report, he commented that the site was to be separately commercially managed.  Councillor Heesom said that it was virtually impossible for two cars to pass on the feeder roads to the area and proposed that the application be refused as it would set a precedent in the open countryside for caravan parks, and create landscape, environmental and highway safety issues. 

            Councillor M.J. Peers felt that the application would take land for the sake of it.  The development was speculative and there was no demonstrated need.  He raised concerns that there were still unsold units on the other part of the golf club and suggested that these could be used as holiday lets. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that there were proposals to provide bunding and enhanced landscaping on the site and that the visual impact of the site would be low-key.  The units which had already been permitted at the golf club were for permanent use and were for sale but this application proposed units for rental use.  

Following a question from Councillor M. Bateman about the ownership of the driveway and access to the site, the Principal Solicitor said that land ownership was a separate issue and did not affect determination of this application. 

The Senior Engineer - Highways Development Control confirmed that Highways had no objections to the proposals subject to the conditions detailed in the report.  She added that there had been significant improvements in 1996 in connection with the application for the golf club. 

The Planning Strategy Manager said that, in principle, the open countryside was not an inappropriate location for this type of application and this was reflected in UDP policies.  He added that, if Members were minded to refuse permission, it should be on grounds of visual impact, not need or  precedent in an open countryside location. 

In summing up, Councillor Heesom said that the site could not be screened as it was very exposed and that it would create a visual impact. He reiterated his concerns over the inadequacy of the wider road network, landscape and environmental issues and said that the existing site would meet the level of need in the area. He said that this development would set a precedent in the open countryside and that the application should be refused. 

            RESOLVED:

That planning permission be refused on the grounds of:-

• visual impact
• highway safety issues on the wider road network
• the existing permission not being fully implemented and should not therefore release any more land
• setting a precedent for unjustified development in the open countryside