Agenda item

The Chairman introduced planning application number 140707 for change of use of land for siting of caravans (lodges) and proposed recreation pond with 20 fishing pegs, to include site levelling using excavated material. The Development Management Team Leader stated two further objections had been received from Hambleton Hill and 3 Rasen Road, Tealby following the publishing of the report. No new matters had been raised that had not already been addressed in the Officer’s report. The recommendation remained the same.

The Chairman invited the Democratic and Civic Officer to read aloud the statement from the first registered speaker.

Statement from the Agent for the Applicant

“We are unable to make a direct representation to the planning committee, however, we would be grateful if the following statement can be read out by the Committee Clerk to the members on our behalf:-

• We wish to provide a high quality development

• The accommodation will provide luxury log cabins, not caravans, as shown within the application details and photographs

• Log cabins will blend naturally into the environment and surroundings

• The lodges have been generously spaced apart at some 12 metres (40 feet) and not 6 metres (20 feet) as some of the comments suggest to provide a better sense of space

• The minimum spacing is more than double the minimum recommendations to prevent a cramped feel to the site

• The layout is curved and organic in nature as opposed to the more traditional grid like patterns of similar developments

• Substantial areas have been provided for amenity and associated landscaping

• The proposed pond and landscaping will enhance the ecology of the site

• The proposed site is located well away from any neighbours

• The Landscape and Visual Assessment as submitted as part of the application demonstrates that the development can be successfully integrated into its setting

• The site is NOT within An Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty as some of the comments suggest

• There have not been any objections received on technical grounds from any Statutory Consultees

• We have worked with the Highway Authority to help reduce the risk of flooding on the Tealby Road (B1203) that previously had a high level of accidents during the winter months.

• We have at our own expense provided natural swales (dykes) on our land, renewed the pipe beneath the Tealby Road and provided silt traps on either side of the road. This has greatly reduced the risk of standing water on the Tealby Road.

• We have also re-surfaced the EXISTING access track up to Hamilton Hill to provide better access for Anglian Water when visiting the reservoir

• Some of this has been suggested that we are carrying out un-authorised works that is not the case at all

• This is a privately funded development of some 5 million and can be immediately delivered and completed following the decision

• Under the present climate, this should be encouraged and supported when considering the proposal falls in line with current legislation and policy

• The development respects the intrinsic nature and built environmental qualities of the area and is considered to be appropriate for the character of the local environment in scale and nature

• The officer's report concludes that the project complies with all relevant policies and recommends approval

• We hope the committee will agree and approve the proposal as it relates to an existing visitor facility that is seeking to expand and, as demonstrated, provides an overriding benefit to the local economy, community and environment

Thank you.”

The Chairman then invited the second speaker to address the Committee.

Lynda Bowen introduced herself to the Committee and explained she was the owner of a neighbouring farm. She stated she was not just representing herself but also other residents. She also stated that although she had been on the Parish Council previously, she was no longer a Councillor. She stated that the size of the proposed development was excessive and would have a negative impact on the area. She stated that she disagreed with the applicant’s assertion that there would be jobs created instead claiming it would add pressure to the local job market. She clarified that she was not fearful of business completion, rather she did not want the peace and tranquillity of the area to be broken. She stated it was not appropriate in scale and nature. She requested that Members at least consider a site visit prior to making a decision and thanked them for their time.

The Chairman thanked the speakers and on inviting comments from the Committee Members, there was some support for the application and the benefit to the local economy and the Officer recommendation to grant permission was moved.

There was significant discussion regarding the scale and nature of the proposal and whether it was appropriate to the area. A second Member supported the application based on the enhancements it would bring to the local community and the recommendation was seconded. On taking a vote, the moved recommendation was refused.

The Chairman requested an alternative proposal and reasons for such a proposal. A Member of the Committee proposed that the application be refused as contrary to LP7 and LP17. On taking the vote for the alternative recommendation it was the majority vote that permission be REFUSED.