Agenda item

(Under the scheme of public participation, Barbara Maher, John Braithwaite,

Tim Sarney, Erica Sarney, Samuel Ashton and John McMinn addressed the Committee as objectors to the application.  Paul Bellwood, the applicant, and Anthony Atkinson, his agent, reiterated their support for the application.)

Barbara Maher spoke in objection to the application.  She advised Members that the nature of the application had made her attendance at Committee necessary.  The proposed development was in an area of outstanding natural beauty.  Adverse development should be resisted.  Accommodation was available within a 1½ mile radius of the proposed development in the form of inns and self-accommodation.  There were log cabins at the Crook O’Lune where the full complement had not been constructed due to lack of demand.  The site of the proposed development was the habitat of rare species which were protected by legislation.  Under this legislation development could only be lawfully undertaken if it could be proved that there was an overriding public interest.  Any permitted development would disturb the otters’ natal holt, which ran extensively into the riverbank.

John Braithwaite spoke in objection to the application.  He informed Members of the policies that the proposed development, if granted, would contravene.  He was dismayed that the Planning Officer’s recommendations were in conflict with this legislation and he quoted from the Officer recommendation.  The Crook O’Lune had been described as the jewel in the crown of Lancaster.  The officer report did not address the proposed design of the cabins.  The proposed design was unimaginative and the construction materials alien.  The cabins would be obtrusive and unacceptable and in contravention of policy requirements.  Any construction would be detrimental to the site and not in the best interests of the local economy.  The type of visitor attracted to the area would be dismayed by such development.  The Committee must refuse the application.

Tim Sarney spoke in objection to the application.  He advised Members that the granting of the application would set a precedent that would lead to the demise of the area.  People who used the amenity were unaware of the proposals until the present, when notices had been displayed.  The area in question was peaceful.  Further tourism would be harmful to the otters.  Site logs had been taken recording in excess of 50 sightings of the otter and cubs.  Details had been sent to Planning Services.  The application proposals constituted a gross misuse of the site and contravened legislation.  Under this legislation it was an offence to damage or destroy a breeding site.  It was the Council’s obligation to protect beauty spots.  The matter had attracted media coverage and interest from international wildlife bodies.

Erica Sarney spoke in objection to the application.  She informed Members that under legislation and EC Directive, all communities had an obligation not to sanction any activity that was to the detriment of a protected species.  The Lancashire Wildlife Police had visited the area and were taking a serious interest in the application.  The photographs supplied by the applicant did not reflect the true picture.  The proposed application was in close proximity to the natal holt and would cut off access to the river.  This was vital for the otter in order to feed her pups.  The mitigation proposed did not offer protection.  If the application was granted, people would be attracted to the river at all times for paddling, swimming and boating.  This would drive the otters away.  Health and Safety issues had been ill-considered.  There had been two young deaths upstream recently.

Samuel Ashton spoke in objection to the application.  He advised Members that he had been a member of Kendal Otter hounds and was a poacher turned gamekeeper, as his interests now lay in conservation.  Little had changed in the scenery along the River Lune.  If the application was granted, the natal holt would be ruined.  Otters were in decline in the 1960s and 1970s and there was clear pressure on the species.  At present, the main danger to otters was from mink.   The natal holt had an entrance under water and this would deter mink and other predators.  It was his firmly held conviction that development would be inappropriate and would disrupt the otters. 

John McMinn spoke in objection to the application.  He informed Members that he was an otter expert on behalf of the International Otter Survival Fund.  He had surveyed the otter and pups over a 3 week period.  If granted the application would result in the removal of vegetation.  The site had been chosen by the otter as it was a haven and provided the necessary habitat in which to raise its young in safety and seclusion.  The natal holt had never been surveyed but would be extensive.  Any development activities would have a serious effect on it.  Safe places were vital to otters.  Thanks to the public not having had access to the site, the otters had bred successfully over the past few years.  Otters had disappeared when fishermen were in the vicinity.  Any development would contravene legislation.  There had been TV coverage showing the otters.  The mitigating factors offered by the applicant could not be administered 24 hours/7 days a week and would not offer protection.

Paul Bellwood, the applicant, spoke in support of his application.  He advised Members that the 3 log cabins sited on the westerly side of the Crook O’Lune would not be visible from the road or the Crook O’Lune.  A tree planting scheme would be adopted and other areas of conservation addressed.  Leading experts had been consulted regarding the application.  The Environment Agency, Natural England and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs had withdrawn their objections.  This was insufficient for the objectors.  He had spent time observing otters since 1972.  He had witnessed them at close-range whilst fishing.  The log cabins would be well-constructed.  They would be beneficial to the rural economy by bringing employment and income into the area.

Anthony Atkinson, agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the application.  He highlighted the work undertaken with Planning Services since the proposal’s inception.  There had been three applications relating to the development of log cabins.  The first was in April 2006.  This was withdrawn to address the issues raised.  The second was in November 2006, which was again withdrawn due to the applicant’s concern over issues arising.  The final one was currently before Committee.   Over this period of time a topical survey and flood risk assessment had been carried out.  A site visit attended by the Council’s Planning Officer and the Tree Protection Officer had taken place.  A car parking and landscaping scheme had been drawn up.  A specialist firm had produced an ecology report, which addressed issues relating to otters.  It was only in 2006 that he had been made aware of the otter holt.  Natural England and the Environment Agency had been involved.  Meetings had taken place with the statutory bodies and any objections had subsequently been withdrawn.

Councillor Paul Woodruff addressed the Committee as Ward Councillor.  He informed Members that he was speaking neither in support nor objection to the application, but in the interests of democracy.  The officer recommendation to grant the application had been changed.  He hoped that this was not as a result of media coverage and the involvement of Lancashire Wildlife Police.  He thought that the impact on local development was significant.  Otters had been in the area for years and had remained during the extensive works to the bridge and other developments.  Fishing rights were enjoyed and used by a number of fishermen.  The Environment Agency was not averse to this.  Otters and fishermen could survive together.  Objections had been received from Mr. and Mrs. Sarney and others, and the International Otter Survival Fund, but no other bodies.  The site was in an area of outstanding natural beauty.  A fine balance had to be struck between tourism and how it was promoted.  He felt that the applicant had been unfairly treated by Planning Services, having only learnt of the change in the officer recommendation at the meeting.  The only way forward was to defer the application.  He recommended that the site be inspected as there was insufficient time at Committee for the application to be given due consideration.

The Head of Planning Services advised the Committee that the officer recommendation had been changed at Committee as it was considered that the proposed development would have an adverse impact on a European protected species and that the proposal did not satisfy the tests required by legislation.

It was proposed by Councillor Kay and seconded by Councillor Coates:

“That the application be refused.”

Upon being put to the vote, 18 Members voted in favour of the proposition and 1 Member abstained, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused.