Proposed campsite for 5 demountable tents (6 month holiday season).

The application was refused contrary to the case officer’s recommendation.

The Principal Planning Officer gave a presentation on the application.

In accordance with the criteria for public speaking, Mr Hunter, a neighbouring resident, spoke in objection to the application, and Mr Robey, the applicant, spoke in support.

In accordance with paragraph 4.8.2.2 of the Council’s Constitution, Councillor GJ Powell, the local ward member, commented on a number of issues, including:

·         The electoral roll listed Bacton as having 50 residents.

·         This application had resulted in more letters of objection than any other application in Bacton over the last 18 months.

·         The Parish Council had echoed the concerns of the local residents.

·         There was no objection in principle although there was a concern that the tents were not visible from the farmhouse, therefore the location for the tents should be revised.

·         The tents were 240 metres away from the farmhouse, the applicant had been reluctant to change this despite discussions taking place.

·         The nearest shops were 4-5 miles away so visitors would still be dependant on a motor vehicle.

·         The application was not in accordance with Policies DR1 and DR3 of the unitary development plan.

·         Blue light services would not be able to access the site.

·         The buffer zone could not be achieved whilst enabling the woodland owner to still have a 12 ft legal access.

·         Due to the concerns in respect of access, health and safety, site management and the location of the tents, the application should be refused.

The debate was opened with a Member of the Committee speaking in support of the application. He was of the opinion that the application highlighted the unique selling points of the county and enabled visitors to see rural Herefordshire at its finest. He did however note that there was still a requirement to protect the woodland trust and considered that this could best be achieved by educating visitors as to the reasons why they should not scavenge wood for fires. He noted the concerns in respect of the location of the proposed tents but considered that the proposed area for the tents appeared to be the most suitable area on the site due to its topography. Finally he requested that appropriate monitoring of the site be undertaken to ensure that the tents were taken down over the winter months and then re-erected in spring.

Members continued to discuss the application and whilst broadly in support they did highlight some concerns including the possible risk of fire through the stoves and cookers which were proposed to be located inside the tents. Further concerns related to the apparent lack of a site management plan, although it was noted that this would be required prior to any of the tents being occupied; the right of access to the site; the proposed siting of the tents; and the difficulty in accessing the site by the emergency services.

Members continued to discuss the application with a number highlighting that the proposed usage was a low impact use and therefore a good farm diversification. However in supporting the application concerns were still expressed in respect of possible safety issues on the site.

Regarding the issue of visual impact, one member proposed that the tents should be finished in the dark green material demonstrated to members on the site inspection. Another Member of the Committee was of the opinion that a slate blue finish would reduce the visual impact considerably.

The right of access issue caused some concern to Members with the Committee stating that any right of access should be honoured and not obstructed in any way. The Head of Neighbourhood Planning responded to this point and advised that a planning permission would not supersede any right of access. It was further noted that if the location of the tents did impede the right of access the applicant could come back to the planning department with a revised site layout.

The Head of Neighbourhood Planning addressed a number of further issues raised by the Committee during the debate. He advised that the applicant may have been awaiting a planning permission prior to completing the site management plan; that issues of health and safety did not fall within the remit of the Planning Committee; that the water supply was also not within the remit of the committee and that enforcement action would be taken if the tents were not removed from the site between October and March.

The Principal Planning Officer also clarified a number of points raised by the Committee. He advised that the mains water pipe would be extended to provide water; that the issue of stoves within tents was not a new one and should not result in any health and safety issues; that the collection of wood could be addressed through better education; and that the buffer zone proposed was a mix of deciduous plants which would not be able to restrict the existing access to the site.

Councillor Powell was given the opportunity to close the debate. He reiterated his opening remarks and made additional comments, including:

·         The proposed site is on a slope.

·         Emergency vehicles would not be able to access the field.

·         The stoves could result in a fire risk.

·         The two access gates shown on the plan are obstructed by the tents.

A motion to approve the application was lost. A motion to defer the application pending further discussions with the applicant in respect of the proposed location of the tents was also lost.

At this stage the Committee discussed the reasons proposed for refusing the application. Members were oft eh opinion that the application was contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies DR2 and DR3 in terms of land use and activity as well as the issues relating to the difficult access to the site by emergency vehicles.

RESOLVED

THAT planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1.         The proposed camp site given its relationship to the road network and existing access route is isolated and would not be readily accessible for emergency vehicles and further would not provide a safe and convenient access for visitors of the camp site. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to the provisions of Policies DR2 and DR3 of the Herefordshire Unitary Development Plan.