Issue - meetings

Change of use of land for the siting of 19 static holiday caravans together with associated parking, access roads, drainage and landscaping and the retention of earthworks.

Under the scheme of public participation, residents Chris Mellor, Terry Mellor, Timothy Sarney and Christopher Austin spoke against the application.  Alexis De Pol (De Pol Associates Ltd) responded in favour.

It was proposed by Councillor Joyce Pritchard and seconded by Councillor Alan Greenwell:

“That the application be refused for reasons 1 and 2 as given in the Committee Report.”

Upon being put to the vote, 12 Councillors voted in favour of the proposal with none against and no abstentions, whereupon the Chair declared the proposal to have been carried.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the following reasons:

1.    The application site includes an area of ancient woodland. The standing advice offered by Natural England with respect to ancient woodlands advises that a buffer of at least 15 metres should be installed between development and ancient wooded areas. In addition, paragraph 180c of the NPPF states that where the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats such as ancient woodland may arise, development should be refused. In this instance, the application proposes to site nine caravans on associated hardstandings within 15 metres of the ancient woodland. The scheme layout fails to incorporate a suitable buffer between the proposed development and the existing woodland as required by the standing advice offered by Natural England. Given their contribution towards the landscape, their amenity value and their remaining lifespan, inflicting harm upon trees believed to comprise ancient woodland is not acceptable and represents a material conflict with policy SP8 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD and policy DM45 of the Development Management DPD, paragraph 180c of the NPPF and the standing advice offered by Natural England.

2.    Policies SP8 of the SPLA DPD and DM44 of the DM DPD seek to ensure undue ecological harm is avoided and mitigated where appropriate. The application does not provide sufficient information within the Habitat Survey & Ecological Impact Assessment regarding the 4 trees that are proposed to be felled. As such the LPA cannot reasonably conclude that harm to bats has been sufficiently avoided or mitigated. Accordingly, the scheme fails to satisfy the advice within the NPPF at paragraphs 8c, 174 and 179 whilst also representing a material conflict with policies SP8 of the Strategic Policies and Land Allocations DPD and policies DM44 and DM52 of the Development Management DPD (insofar as ecology and species impact is concerned).