Proposed erection of 5 single bed holiday chalets and associated parking.

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

(Proposed erection of 5 single bed holiday chalets and associated parking.)

The Senior Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr D Jones, of Clifford Parish Council spoke in opposition to the Scheme.  Mrs K Morgan, the applicant’s agent, spoke in support.

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

He made the following principal comments:

·        The current business was very successful with many benefits to local businesses, the wider area of the County and beyond.  The applicants were seeking to grow a sustainable business, within the existing curtilage, that would support both parents and employ local staff.  It was not a development in the open countryside.

·        The units would not be visible from most angles but still enabled individual unit views to the north. There was no intention to build any other units in front, as the success of the units depended on their location and view. The roofs would be constructed using high quality “green” materials to soften the design and make them less conspicuous,

·        The Landscape and Conservation officers had observed that there could be a long distance view of the development from the public rights of way on Merbach hill.   Allowing a hedge to the east to grow a little higher and some individual tree planting would maintain the traditional form of the landscape and mitigate any such views from Merbach hill.  The only other potential long distance view was towards the north and this would be mitigated by the non-reflective glass walls of the development facing that direction.

·        The suggestion that the units should be placed in the very small area next to the cattle sheds was not a feasible option.

·        A grade 2 listed building on the site needed repair.  This required additional income. Future development might involve growth in using this building.

·        There was growing tourist demand in and around the Golden Valley area.  The provision of more tourist beds should be supported.

·        The Core Strategy provided for businesses to grow within “a residence and business curtilage”

·        The majority of the officer report was encouraging and supportive. The negative aspects could be mitigated.

·        The issues raised by the Parish Council could be overcome.

·        Supporting the application would demonstrate the Council’s support for businesses.

·        Nearly all of the representations supported the application.

·        He asked the Committee to support the application.

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

·        Policies E4 and RA6 supported the development and business success would also enable the listed buildings on site to be protected.

·        The existing hedges would provide cover for the development.

·        It was understandable that officers suggested a site closer to the existing building would be preferable.  However, the neighbouring farm buildings were not in the applicants’ ownership and it was clear that they did not wish to put the development on that part of the site.

·        There was concern that the site would be in the open countryside, would be visible from Merbach hill, a lit path would be needed to the main building and there would be light from the chalets.

·        It was requested that a walnut tree on site should be protected.

·        The proposed design was not appropriate in the location.  The objection of the Conservation Manager (Landscape) was sound.

·        It would be preferable to develop the existing buildings.

·        There was a concern that the site would continue to grow.

The Lead Development Manager commented that it was a question of balance between landscape harm and the economic aspects of the application.  Officers had concluded that the landscape harm outweighed the benefits.

The local ward member was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated that he considered that the chalets with a little mitigation would be virtually invisible from Merbach hill.  The design would also make the chalets inconspicuous and he considered it to be appropriate for the site.  The applicants did not own enough land for the development to grow excessively and that would also be contrary to the ethos of their scheme.  He did not consider that there was a transport issue given the scale of the development and there was no objection from the Transportation Manager.  He also considered that most of the Parish Council’s concerns could be mitigated.

Councillor Edwards proposed and Councillor Hyde seconded a motion that the application be approved on the grounds that it complied with policies E4, RA6, MT1 and paragraphs 6 and 12 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).  The motion was carried with 7 votes in favour, 5 against and 1 abstention.

RESOLVED:  That planning permission be granted on the grounds that the application was supported by policies E4, RA6, MT1 and paragraphs 6 and 12 of the NPPF, and officers named in the scheme of delegation to officers be authorised to detail the conditions and reasons put forward for approval.