Agenda item

The Planning Officer presented the report and outlined the reasons for refusal as detailed in the report.

A letter has been received from the Parish Council since the publication of the committee report seeking to clarify a few details as follows:

Para 33 – the Parish Council do not have vehicular access to the site when it is in use as a campsite, and therefore only have access when maintaining the Village Hall.

Para 34 – pedestrian access to the site is through the pedestrian gate next to the hall’s front door.

Paras 37 to 42 – although contested by the Parish Council, Planning Officers are of the view that the report is a fair assessment of parking and highways impact at the site, and do not feel it necessary to offer any corrections or updates.

The following spoke under the public participation at meetings scheme:

Matthew Pilmoor – Objector

Cllr Suzanne Oliver - Supporter

Some Members had visited the site the previous day.

The following points were discussed:

·       The Parish Council had been unable to provide details of the dates when camping would take place or how many people would be on the site at each camping event.

·       The Parish Hall was used for showering and toilets by people staying at the camp site.

·       The ownership of the land subject to the planning application proposal was split between the Parish Council and the site neighbour.  The neighbour was not willing for their part of the land to be used for camping.

·       There had been insufficient details provided by the Parish Council on parking, layout, refuse collection and access to the site to determine the application other than to refuse it.

·       The site wasn’t suitable for camping set in an exposed area with no parking provision. 

·       The site wasn’t supervised.

·       The Parish Hall had inadequate facilities for the potential number of camp site visitors.

·       The 60 day permitted use would remain on the site if the application was refused.  The Authority could seek to remove permitted development rights through an Article 4 direction.

A motion to refuse the application was proposed and seconded, put to the vote and carried.

RESOLVED:

That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

1.     The development would appear visually intrusive, having an unacceptable adverse visual impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding open landscape and the tranquil amenity of the area, harming the valued characteristics of the National Park. Contrary to Core Strategy policies GSP1, GSP3, L1 and RT3, Development Plan Polices DMC3, DMR1 & DMR2 and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2.     The development would materially harm the living conditions of occupants of neighbouring residential property contrary to Core Strategy Policy GSP3 and Development Management Policy DMC3.

3.     Insufficient information has been submitted to properly assess the impact of the development on highway safety, contrary to policies GSP3, DMC3 and DMT3.

11:45am the meeting was adjourned and recommenced at 11:55am