Agenda item

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use of land to site up to six wigwam pods, one manager’s office with storage, biodisc tank, landscape bund and associated infrastructure.  Members considered the presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from the Planning Case Officer, suggesting minor amendments to the following conditions:

Conditions

10 - Ecology

No building on site shall be first occupied until details including location of a hedgehog house and a bird nest boxes and any other ecological enhancement, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The hedgehog houses/nest boxes and the approved ecological enhancement scheme shall then be installed prior to first use or in agreement with a timeframe to be arranged, in accordance with the approved details and retained thereafter for the lifetime of the development unless otherwise agreed in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: In the interests of maintain and enhancing biodiversity.

14 – Further uses/PD

Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (and any order revoking, re-enacting or modifying that Order), other than development expressly authorised by this permission, there shall be no development under Schedule 2, Part 3 of the Order.

Reason : To ensure that the local planning authority retains control over future uses of the site normally permitted under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (or any amending legislation).

Councillor M. Davies on behalf of Collingham Parish Council spoke in support of the application in accordance with the views of Collingham Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Members considered the application and it was commented that Cottage Lane was too narrow for the additional traffic this site would generate, given that people walk and cycle down Cottage Lane which had no pedestrian foot paths.  The proposal would take the character away from Cottage Lane and the surrounding area.  There was also no proven need for this business in this location. There was already three Bed and Breakfast businesses and a substantial caravan site in the village.  The site would also generate noise of which the Environmental Health Officers had commented upon within the report and suggested noise monitoring.  Other Members commented that the Parish Council was in support of the application.  The existing business was in the open countryside and the applicant was trying to diversify.  The vehicle movements would replace those of the previous business.  This proposal may also support the local economy.  It was also commented that a possible bike hire provision would be good and would support Sustrans.  The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that permitted development rights could be removed and included in condition 14.  A condition regarding the playing of music after 22:00 hours was not unreasonable and a 30mph restriction on Cottage Lane could be included as an informative.

A vote was taken to approve planning permission and lost with 3 votes for and 10 votes against.

AGREED      (with 9 votes For 3 votes Against and 1 Abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be refused on the following grounds:

                   The proposal does not represent sustainable rural tourism in the open countryside with an identified need and is unacceptable in terms of its impacts on local infrastructure and amenity noting the narrow nature of Cottage Lane contrary to CP7 and DM8.

In accordance with paragraph 12.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

In accordance with Rule No. 30.1, the Chairman indicated that the time limit of three hours had expired and a motion was proposed and seconded to continue the meeting.

AGREED           (unanimously) that the meeting continue.