Agenda item

It was noted that Members had visited the site on the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report and updated Members that the application had been revised reducing the number of pods to 4  from 6 and omitted the amenity block.  The Officer also informed members that there would also be an impact on the landscape as a new bridge and access track would have to be built as well as visibility splays on the highway.

The following spoke under the Public Participation at Meetings Scheme:

·         Cllr Gill Heath, Supporter

·         Ms Abigail Evans, on behalf of the applicant, Supporter

Members were concerned about  the size of the pods, the visual impact of the road, and that the logistics of getting on and off the site from  the highway could be problematical.   

The Officer recommendation to refuse the application was moved, seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To  REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.    The permanence, size, and design of the pods means that their potential impacts would be comparable to siting chalets or lodges on the land, which policy RT3(B) states will not be permitted.

2.    Due to the siting of the camping pods in open countryside, outside of woodland, and due to the position and appearance of the access track, the development would harm the rural character and appearance of the landscape, contrary to policies L1, LC4.

3.    Insufficient information has been submitted to establish whether the development would conserve the ecological interests of the site, contrary to policies L2 and LC17.

4.    Insufficient information has been submitted to establish whether the development would conserve tree interests within and adjacent to the site, contrary to policy LC20.

5.    Due to sub-standard exit visibility from the site access, and due to a lack of information regarding access track construction, the application fails to demonstrate that the development would be served by safe access arrangements, contrary to policy LT18.

6.    Insufficient information has been submitted to establish whether the development would result in an increase in flood risk, contrary to policies CC5 and LC22.