Agenda item

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) with condition 8 being amended to require grubbing-up and moving the hedge to the rear of the visibility splay and a new hedge to be planted if this fails. 

The Committee considered the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) 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 and explained that the application was a resubmission but had been amended to delete the siting of touring caravans.  However, the reference to caravans was reported in paragraph 7.18 and the officer asked Members to disregard this.  Also the word ‘no’ should be included in the penultimate sentence in paragraph 7.31 between the words ‘there is’ and ‘ecological objection’. 

            Mr T. Rimmer spoke against the application and said that a similar application had been refused and dismissed on appeal.  He commented on the inclusion of the reference to caravans in paragraph 7.18.  He said that the site was located in the green barrier in open countryside and all of the neighbouring land was farmland.  Mr. Rimmer felt that the application would have an impact on the hydrology of the area and he spoke of nitrate vulnerable zones.  He felt that policy GEN4 Green Barrier was important in considering this application and that the Inspector had found the application to be inappropriate and intrusive.  Mr. Rimmer commented on the construction of the ponds and said that the report did not include information on hydrology and a business case for the proposals had not been made.  The report made reference to the importance of landscape and Mr. Rimmer felt that the application should be refused because of this.  He also felt that the fishing ponds would harm the green barrier and the open character of the area and were not essential.  In response to a query from Councillor Chris Bithell, Mr. Rimmer indicated that he was speaking on behalf of the neighbouring land owner. 

            Mr. J. Woodcock, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He explained that he had purchased the land in 2009 and had undertaken discussions with officers prior to purchasing the land and had followed their guidance.  He had noted the local objections and he explained that a drilling assessment had been undertaken.  He currently ran a small family business in Ewloe and it was hoped that the business could achieve a David Bellamy ecology award.  This revised application had a recommendation of approval and would enhance the landscape, was sustainable and would make use of redundant buildings.             

            The Local Member, Councillor Alison Halford, proposed the recommendation for approval which was duly seconded.  She indicated that there were policies in place to permit development in the open countryside and green barrier and she added that the proposal would not damage water in the area.

            In welcoming the application, Councillor Chris Bithell said that diversification was essential.  The proposal would encourage tourism and would create employment and would provide a facility for fishing which was a popular pastime.  He felt that it was a commendable proposal which would bring buildings back into use and met all of the requirements of the Council’s policies. 

            Councillor Ian Dunbar complimented the applicant on having complied with everything that had been asked of him .  Councillor Mike Peers sought clarification on the sustainability of the bore hole to supply water to the development.  He also asked for further information on how the foul sewage would be dealt with via a bio-disc treatment plant and discharged into an existing ditch.  Councillor Peers highlighted paragraph 7.14 where the comments of the Inspector on the harm that the caravan park would have on the openness of the green barrier and queried what impact other vehicles such as vans would have.  He raised concern at the proposal to remove 160m of roadside hedge to create the appropriate sight lines and asked for an explanation about new building in the countryside and the visual impact of any such building.  Councillor Carol Ellis also raised concern about the removal of the hedgerow and asked whether a condition could be imposed to prevent the applicant from submitting a further application for the provision of touring caravans on the site.  Councillor Christine Jones welcomed the proposal as a leisure activity. 

            In response to the comments made, the officer said that caravans did not form part of this proposal and if an application was submitted in the future, it would be considered on its merits.  The difference between the impact of caravans and vans was the nature of the permanence as caravans would be on site for 24 hours a day whereas cars and vans would only be on site for the duration of the visit to the fishery.  It was reported that the vehicles would have an impact but that it would be acceptable.  On the issue of the hedge removal, it was necessary to provide visibility but it was proposed that a replacement hedge would be planted outside the sight lines.  The officer indicated that condition 8 could be modified to specify the grubbing-up and moving of the hedgerow but that a fallback would need to be considered if this was not successful.  The bore hole would provide clean water for the site and had been the subject of consultation with no objections.  The discharge into the existing ditch would be of clean water following treatment.  Existing buildings would be converted and the form and scale were considered to be acceptable and did not detract from the architectural quality of the building.

Councillor Ray Hughes requested that re-grubbing of the hedge be tried first.          

            RESOLVED:

            That planning permission be granted subject to the conditions detailed in the report of the Chief Officer (Planning and Environment) with condition 8 being amended to require grubbing-up and moving the hedge to the rear of the visibility splay and a new hedge to be planted if this fails.