Permission to incorporate laser clays sporting option to existing area involved with existing established clay shooting layout, replacement of a portable cabin with a small lodge and viewing area (part retrospective).

The application was refused contrary to the Case Officer’s recommendation.

(Permission to incorporate laser clays sporting option to existing area involved with existing established clay shooting layout, replacement of a portable cabin with a small lodge and viewing area (part retrospective).)

(Councillor Paul Andrews had left the meeting and was not present during consideration of this application.  Councillor Bolderson fulfilled the role of local ward member and accordingly had no vote on this application.)

The Planning Enforcement Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking for virtual meetings the following spoke at the meeting as virtual attendees:  Mr S Sharp of Callow and Haywood Group Parish Council spoke in objection to the scheme, Mr G Hardy, a local resident, spoke in objection; and Mr P Lewis spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor Bolderson, spoke on the application.  In summary, she outlined the planning history of the application site, noting that the application before the committee was a further retrospective application, with a number of other retrospective applications awaiting determination. She commented on letters of support and objection noting that the Parish Council opposed the application.  Her principal concerns included the unauthorised expansion of the site and increased traffic with adverse impact on Grafton Lane which was part of the National Cycle Network, and a lack of toilet facilities.  She advanced a number of grounds for refusal citing policies from both the Core Strategy and the Callow and Haywood Neighbourhood Development Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee discussed the application.

The Lead Development Manager commented that the committee must focus on the application before it.  In Officers’ view the impact of the specific proposal was not sufficiently adverse to warrant refusal of the application.  Other matters that had arisen on the site were the subject of separate action and consideration.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  She reiterated the grounds for refusal she had advanced.

A motion that the application be refused contrary to the officer recommendation on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies SD1, RA6, SS1, MT1 and SC1 was carried.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be refused on the grounds that the development was contrary to policies SD1, RA6, SS1, MT1 and SC1 and officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to officers be authorised to detail the reasons put forward for refusal by the committee, including any provisions in the Callow and Haywood NDP considered applicable.