Change of use of land for erection of five holiday chalets in landscaped gardens.

The Principal Planning Office reported the following updates:

The report omitted two letters of objection that were received within the consultation period. These were from:

• Mrs Bridget Batchelor, High View Farm, Aymestrey
• Mrs V M Thorpe, Yew Tree House, Lucton

These letters make the following points

• Notes that policy S1 states that developments should respect the needs of local communities and encourage greater self-sufficiency within local communities and should seek more equitable access for all sectors of the community to opportunities for homes

• Notes that policy S8 states that now facilities for tourism will be supported but they should contribute to local economic development, employment and community regeneration and that Tourism development should avoid or minimise intrusion on local communities

• Aymestrey and Mortimers Cross are small settlements. There are about 24 houses in Aymestrey and around 16 in Mortimers Cross (including 8 park homes). There are five holiday chalets in Aymestrey giving a ration of 5:24 or 1:5. It is argues that by creating such a high ratio of holiday lets by approving the development this would intrude on the local community and conflict with the aims of policy S8. The combined numbers of units between the application is too many for the community.

• The chalets would impact on the residential amenities of neighbouring properties with the comings and goings.

• There is no shop, no tourist based business (cycle or canoe hire, craft workshops, guided walks or pony trekking)

• The development does not offer any elements for developing facilities or attraction.

• There is no need for additional tourist accommodation. The character of the are is primarily agricultural – the proposed chalets would be inappropriate

• The access is onto the busy A4110 which is a busy junction used by lorries and the additional traffic movements would add to the complexity of the traffic movements at the crossroads.

• The site would be better used for affordable housing.

The Principal Planning Officer also reported that a further condition would be required to ensure that access to the public right of way near to the pub car park was kept clear. 

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr K Holland spoke on behalf of Aymestry Parish Council, Mrs B Batchelor spoke in objection to the application, and Mr P Williams, the applicant, spoke in support. 

In response to a question from the Local Ward Member, Councillor LO Barnett, the Legal Practice Manager outlined the Inspector’s conclusions in respect of a previous appeal for the site, where the application had been for eight holiday chalets.  Councillor Barnett felt that, contrary to the applicant’s observations, it was unclear whether the site could be described as “Brownfield”.  She acknowledged that the Appeal Inspector had felt that there were no issues regarding highway safety in the vicinity of the site, and stated that she could not support this view on the grounds that the Parish Council had felt that the road was dangerous and had made several requests for a speed restriction to be imposed.  She was of the opinion that the site access should only be used for emergencies.  In addition, she stated that there was no proven need for more holiday homes in the area, and for all of these reasons, she suggested that the application should be refused.  In response to a further question from Councillor Barnett, the Principal Planning Officer confirmed that enforcement action had been held in abeyance in respect of mobile homes on the site, pending the outcome of this application.  She added that the application could be used as a positive means to regularise the development on the site. 

The Development Control Manager reported that there was clear evidence to support the fact that the site had previously been Greenfield.  He advised that, in the absence of observations from the Tourism Officer, the impact on tourism would have to be viewed as a neutral consideration. 

Councillor RJ Phillips questioned whether the appeal inspector had taken account of the Council’s statistics on vehicle movements on the road, particularly in relation to the count of approximately 837 HGV movements daily.  He felt that even if the access was restricted to emergencies only, it would still be a significant hazard. 

Having considered all the information surrounding the application, members agreed that planning permission be refused because they felt that the application would be detrimental to the surrounding area of open countryside and river meadow.  Furthermore, although noting the Appeal Inspector’s observations on highway safety, members felt that this should also be taken into account as a reason for refusal, based on the Council’s own statistics and on local reports of the area. 

RESOLVED:  

That(i) The Northern Area Planning Sub-Committee is minded to refuse the application, subject to the reasons given below, and any reasons for refusal considered necessary by officers, provided that the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee:

·         The application is detrimental to the character and appearance of the area, and to highway safety;

                        (ii) If the Head of Planning Services does not refer the application to the Planning Committee, Officers named in the Scheme of Delegation to Officers be instructed to refuse the application, subject to such conditions and agreements referred to above. 

[Note: Following the vote on the application, the Development Control Manager said that he would not refer the decision to the Head of Planning Services.]