Agenda item

This item was brought forward on the agenda as the speakers had arrived.

Members had visited the site the previous day.

The Planning Officer introduced the report outlining the reasons for refusal as set out in the report. 

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

·         Mr James Crossan, Objector

·         Mr Dan Cox, Applicant

The Planning Officer confirmed that no pre-application advice had been sought so no exploration had taken place as to whether a less intensive use would be more appropriate, or whether there was a better location within the applicant’s ownership.

The desirability of providing opportunities for farm diversification was acknowledged, however this had to be considered alongside the impact on the landscape of the proposed development, which members considered would be unacceptable in the proposed location which was in open countryside in close proximity to the boundary of the village conservation area.

A motion to refuse the application in accordance with Officer recommendation was moved and seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

To REFUSE the application for the following reasons:

1.    The siting of five motorhomes and the associated hardstandings, access track, and associated paraphernalia would cause harm to the established landscape character of the area and setting of the Great Longstone Conservation Area, contrary to Development Management Plan policies GSP1, L1, L3 and RT3 and Development Management Plan policies DMC3, DMC8 and DMR1 and the National Planning Policy Framework. The public benefits would not outweigh the harm that has been identified.

2.    By virtue of its close proximity to nearby dwellings, the development would cause harm to residential amenity through noise and disturbance, contrary to Core Strategy polices GSP3 and RT3 and Development Management policies DMC3, DMC14 and DMR1 and the National Planning Policy Framework