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 same reason as for application number 049803). 

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. 

            The officer detailed the background to the report explaining that this was a re-submission of a previous application which had been refused on the grounds as detailed in paragraph 7.02.  The applicant had appealed the decision but, due to concerns raised by Countryside Council for Wales (now Natural Resources Wales), had been required to resubmit the application with additional information to address these matters. 

The primary use for the site was the fishing ponds for 52 weeks of the year and 27 touring caravan pitches which would be open for eight months of the year to anglers and non anglers.  It was proposed that one of the buildings would be utilised for accommodation for a manager and another to be converted into a café and shower block.  The main issues for consideration included the effect on the openness of the green barrier and on the visual appearance and character of the open countryside.  Paragraph 7.17 detailed when Policy GEN4 could be applied and paragraphs 7.18 and 7.19 referred to the Magazine Lane application, the decision of the Inspector for that site, and how it differed from this site.  The officer said that because of the seasonal nature of the touring caravan part of the application, the caravan site would not be in use from November to February.  It was therefore considered that this proposal was acceptable and that any impact could be mitigated. 

            Mr. T. Rimmer spoke against the application on behalf of the owner of the working farm on the adjoining land.  He said that the impact on the green barrier was a concern and that if the application was approved it would make it difficult for the farmer to undertake routine farming activities such as muck spreading, due to the close proximity of the site to his farm.  He referred to Policy T6 which required that the site did not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of other residents; Mr. Rimmer felt that it would cause a significant impact on the farmer.  He felt that the proposal was too intensive for the land and there was no evidence that a hydrological survey had been carried out.  He said that the impact on the amenity and upon the ponds had not been taken into account and urged Members to refuse the application.  He concluded that the proposals would impact on the farming of neighbouring land. 

            Mr. E. Jones, the agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He said that the application complied with all relevant policies in the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and this was evidenced in the report.  The proposed use was appropriate in the green barrier and Highways had no objection to the application subject to conditions which were detailed.  He said that the site was in an ideal location for a fishing facility and though the provision of caravans was controversial, as that use would be seasonal, its impact was reversible, and it would contribute to the tourism of the area.  It would be a family run facility with a sound base and would employ up to 12 local people on a full or part time basis.  Tuition for fishing was to be provided and fishing competitions would also be arranged.  Professional advice had been sought to ensure that there was no detrimental impact on neighbours.  Mr. Jones added that it was an exciting opportunity and asked Members to approve the application.           

Councillor Derek Butler proposed refusal of the application against officer recommendation which was duly seconded.  He said that he could not see any difference to the application which was refused in 2012.  He raised concern about the reasons given by Natural Resources Wales and said that, whilst an environmental assessment had previously been sought, it had not been asked for as part of this application.  He felt that paragraph 7.12 did not show a business plan and he disagreed with the use of the word ‘essential’ in paragraphs 7.17 and 7.18 as he did not feel that the fishing ponds were big enough to attract customers to the site.  Councillor Butler referred to the wealth of small ponds in the area which provided opportunities for fishing and said that he did not feel that the business was sustainable.  He also raised concern about the lack of comments from the Tourism and Regeneration officers. 

Councillor Carol Ellis asked if Northop Hall Community Council and the adjacent ward Member had been consulted on the proposals as the settlement boundary was near to Northop Hall.  She supported refusal of the application on the grounds of non compliance with Policy T6 and the detrimental impact on the farms around it.  Councillor Ellis highlighted paragraph 7.16 regarding the policy considerations and the principle of development, and disagreed with the comments made.    

One of the local Members, Councillor Dave Mackie, said that in accordance with advice previously given, he would leave the chamber after speaking and prior to discussion of the application.  He spoke against the application and said that, whilst some elements of the development were temporary, others were not, and it would be open and visible from a wide area which would make it harmful to the green barrier.  He said that the Inspector in the Magazine Lane inquiry had not accepted that a rural location was essential for such a proposal.  If the proposal went ahead, Councillor Mackie felt that fishing ponds could be dug anywhere.  He said that the officer had recommended approval of the application in October 2012 but it had been refused by the Committee and he urged Members to be consistent and refuse the current application. 

Councillor Alison Halford, the other local Member, said that one of the reasons that the application had previously been refused was because of the decision on the Magazine Lane application, the other because of the lack of proper consultation with the adjoining land owner; both of these issues had been addressed in the report.  Three letters of support had been received along with ten letters of objection: more weight should be given to the former.  She felt that there were no proper fishing facilities in the area.  Councillor Halford said that the issues of drainage and boreholes had been covered in the report along with the visual impact of the caravans.  She added that the visibility splay was to be conditioned which would be better than that at the nearby Ewloe Kennels.  Councillor Halford said that the comment that children and fishing did not mix was untrue and referred to the pond at Ewloe which was well used.  She felt that this was a wonderful opportunity and asked Members to approve the application.

Councillor Richard Jones disagreed with Councillor Halford regarding the availability of fishing facilities and referred to other ponds in the area.  He queried the figures proposed in the business plan reported in paragraph 7.12.  He raised concern about the boreholes which were to be dug and queried what effect this might have on the water table.  He did not feel that this was the right proposal for this piece of land.

Councillor Gareth Roberts referred to paragraph 7.17 and said that he did not feel that this was an essential facility for outdoor sport and recreation.  The crucial factor was that it was in the green barrier.  He concurred that there were many fishing ponds in the area and that if it was permitted would set a precedent for similar types of application in the green barrier.  He had supported officers in opposing a previous proposal in the green barrier on Sealand Road, near Chester.  If he had been against that proposal, he could not see how he could support the current application.

Councillor Mike Peers felt that the application would have a detrimental impact on the green barrier and highlighted paragraphs 7.07, 7.08 and 7.31.  Councillor Jim Falshaw spoke in support of the application and said that tourism in Flintshire was needed.  Councillor Dave Cox concurred with approval of the application and spoke of the significant work that had been put into the application and that it would be a pleasant area for families to enjoy if the application was approved.  He felt that the countryside was not exclusively for use by farmers.  Councillor Owen Thomas said that a lot of work had been done and the conditions had been tightened but he disagreed with permitted development removal saying that caravan occupants would have to accept associated smells from farming. 

In response to comments from Councillors Butler and Ellis, the officer said that the Tourism and Regeneration officers had been consulted but no response had been received.  Northop Community Council and the adjoining local Member had not been consulted.

The Planning Strategy Manager said that the UDP policies generally allowed this sort of development in this sort of location.  The application did not have to meet all of the criteria within the green barrier policy (GEN 4) and that it did satisfy criteria (g), which referred to other appropriate uses.  The important question was whether the proposal would unacceptably harm the green barrier and it was felt that this proposal did not.  He also advised, in the context of policy T6, that agricultural activities such as muck spreading were infrequent and should not influence the decision.

In summing up, Councillor Butler said that the application should be refused for the same reasons as the previous application.  He felt that the business plan needed further examination and added that the report did not contain any information on the need or demand for fishing ponds.  He also said that a response was also required from the Tourism officer. 

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

            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 (the same reason as for application number 049803).