Proposed camp site and temporary dwelling.  This is an amended application that is a resubmission of application no. 172848 refused 6 October 2017.

The Committee deferred consideration of this application pending receipt of further information.

(Proposed camp site and temporary dwelling. An amended application, a resubmission of application 172848 refused under delegated powers 6 October 2017.)

The Development Manager (DM) gave a presentation on the application, and updates/additional representations received following the publication of the agenda were provided in the update sheet, as appended to these Minutes.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mrs R Rennick the applicant spoke in support of the application.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, the local ward member, Councillor BA Durkin, spoke on the application.

He made the following principal comments:

·        There was considerable local support for the application. 

·        The proposal was to create an eco-focused sustainable tourism site.  It was not a simple camping site.  It was consistent with the three dimensions to sustainable development in the National Planning Policy Framework: economic, social and environmental.

·        An independent assessment provided with the application confirmed that the proposal was financially sustainable and the report indicated at paragraph 6.12 that officers accepted this point.

·        It was consistent with policies RA6 and E4.

·        It was in keeping with provisions with paragraphs 84 and 85 of the consultation draft for a revised National Policy Planning Framework.  Whilst carrying no planning weight at the moment this was indicative of government thinking.

·        The Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) supported rural enterprise.  The report suggested the development was contrary to policy SD1 of the NDP.  However, the introduction to the NDP was supportive of sustainable development in the countryside.

·        Those residing on the site would face a road safety environment, for example in relation to crossing the A449, no different to that with which current residents had to cope.

·        People using such sites would not be unwilling to walk or cycle less than a mile that would bring them to the centre of the village.

·        The provision of overnight stays would boost economic development in the locality and further afield. 

In the Committee’s discussion of the application the following principal points were made:

·        The environmental impact had to be balanced against the economic impact.  The scheme had the potential to be economically sustainable and of value to the county.

·        The proposal had the support of the majority of the local community.

·        The proposal represented sustainable development supporting the rural economy and tourism and the environment.

·        It was unsurprising that a development of this nature was outside the settlement boundary.

·        Moving the proposed access meant that there would be a minimal effect on the listed building in the vicinity.

·        The strength of the parish council’s opposition was questioned.

·        The proposal would have an adverse impact on a grade 2 listed cottage, abutting its hedgerow.

·        A considerable length of hedgerow would have to be removed to create a safe access.

·        The principle of the scheme was sound but it was in the wrong place.

·        The Lead Development Manager commented that consideration needed to be given to the impact on the listed building, the access (noting that part of the visibility splay was outside the applicant’s control), and the location, which would entail limited car use.  If approval were granted conditions should be attached in relation to the occupancy of the temporary dwelling.

·        The DM confirmed that a limited bus service ran to Much Marcle. It was noted that the bus stop was half a mile from the site.

·        Clarification was sought on the nature of the proposed three-bedroomed temporary dwelling and whether this was necessary and appropriate.

The DM clarified that the proposed dwelling would not be mobile and/or meet the definition of a caravan.  It would be a highly insulated log cabin type of dwelling.  There was a question mark over applying a temporary condition to such a dwelling.

In the light of uncertainty about the temporary dwelling and the access in particular, it was proposed that consideration of the application should be deferred for further consideration. 

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate.  He commented that he did not consider that the proposal would have an adverse effect on a much loved view out from Much Marcle. The Parish Council had originally supported a proposal that had involved caravans but were now opposed.  The topography would hide some of the buildings.  Rural enterprise was to be encouraged in line with government intentions.  The site also had educational benefits.

Councillor Seldon proposed and Councillor Lloyd-Hayes seconded a motion that the application be deferred pending receipt of further information. The motion was carried with 13 votes in favour, none against and no abstentions.

RESOLVED:  That consideration of the application be deferred pending receipt of further information.

(The meeting adjourned between 11.58 and12.22)