Agenda item

Ward:  Nuthurst

Applicant:  George Corfield

The Head of Development reported that this application sought permission for the provision of four Gypsy and Traveller pitches, each with a utility building and parking space.  The existing building would be used for storage by users of the site.  Amenity areas and paddock area were included in the proposal.  The proposal had originally been for six pitches and a retail unit and, in response to concerns, had been amended to four units. 

Members were updated on a number of issues including:

·        a correction to the final sentence of paragraph 6.19 of the Officers report which should have referred to 8 Bar Lane and Little Tuckmans;

·        that five further letters/emails of objection had been received but that these had not raised any concerns that had not already been summarised in the report;

·        that a further email had been received that afternoon which raised concerns with regard to the lack of information submitted in respect of ecology and the potential for determination of the application without due consideration of the impact of the proposal on ecology, and;

·        that comments had been received from the Council’s Conservation Officer who has agreed that the comments made in the report were an accurate summary of the discussion that has taken place.

The application site was located outside the built-up area boundary southeast of Southwater on the eastern side of Bar Lane and was agricultural land with two barns it the southwest corner.  There were open fields to the north, east and south.  The hamlet of Copsale was about 600 metres north.  The nearest dwelling was about 86 metres to the southwest.

Details of relevant government and council policies and relevant planning history, as contained within the report, were noted by the Committee. The responses from statutory internal and external consultees, as contained within the report, were considered by the Committee.  

Nuthurst Parish Council and Southwater Parish Council both objected to the application.  There had been 86 objections to the original application and a further 33 objections to the amended scheme, making a total of 119 objections from 77 households. Since publication of the report a further six objections had been received including one commenting on the proposal’s impact on ecology and the lack of an ecology plan, as outlined above.

Three members of the public spoke in objection to the application and the applicant’s agent addressed the Committee in support of the proposal. A representative of Nuthurst Parish Council spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the officer’s planning assessment which indicated that the key issues for consideration in determining the proposal were:  the principle of development; its impact on the landscape character and appearance of the area; the privacy and amenity of neighbouring residents; and highways.  It was noted that Condition 6 would address concerns regarding land contamination.

Members were advised that Condition 5 should be amended to require floor plans to be submitted in additional to full details of the proposed structures.

Member were also advised that in respect of ecology, this was addressed at paragraph 6.31 of the Officers report. Officers advised that the Council has a legal duty to consider the conservation of Biodiversity within the District and that there are a number of policies and legislation which enforce this including the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, NPPF and the Local Plan. Where a proposal was within or likely to affect a designated site or priority habitat or there is evidence or a reasonable likelihood of the presence of protected or priority species an initial survey would be required. Members were advised that in this instance given the limited part of the site which was proposed to be developed, its distance to any significant vegetation and the characteristics of the area of the site which is proposed to be developed, Officers did not consider that a survey was necessary.  However as a precautionary measure and given that the majority of the site was rough grass and that there were ponds in the area, an additional condition was recommended requiring a method of ground clearance to be submitted to and agreed by the Council prior to the commencement of development.

Members considered whether the principle and scale of development would be appropriate in this rural location and after careful consideration concluded that the proposal was acceptable.

RESOLVED

That planning application DC/17/2216 be granted subject to the conditions as reported, to include: an additional condition requiring the details of ground clearance methods to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority; and an amendment to Condition 5 to require details of proposed floor plans along with full details of the proposed structures to be submitted and approved by the Local Planning Authority.