Change of use of land to form camping site to include the erection of 6 self-contained yurts for holiday lettings; one amenity building; installation of sewage treatment plant (amended description).

The Planning Associate, introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations.  He drew Members’ attention to the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting.  He further provided a verbal update regarding objections received following publication of the Schedule of Additional Letters and which related to road safety, insufficient passing places along the lane, sewerage, water management, environment matters, lack of supervision on the site, noise and a request for no dogs on site.

Members had undertaken a site visit and had viewed the site and had assessed the impact of a proposal on the surrounding area. 

Ms H Vaughan, a local resident, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

Councillor J Limond, representing Clun Town Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees. 

In accordance with the Local Protocol for Councillors and Officers dealing with Regulatory Matters (Part 5, Paragraph 15) Councillor Nigel Hartin, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  He then left the room, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         Although the applicants had stated that the yurts would be removed from the site at the end of the season there would however be some permanent ground works;

·         The proposal would detract from the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB);

·         Highways had raised no objections; however the roads were very narrow, passing places were limited and this proposal would significantly increase traffic; and

·         He urged refusal – the proposal would be in the wrong place.

Mr N Williams, the agent, spoke for the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees and responded to questions from Members.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and considered the submitted plans.  Members expressed concern regarding the location and remoteness of the site; road safety; topography; management of the site; access; and groundworks.  In response to comments and questions from Members, the Planning Associate reiterated that Shropshire Council’s Highways Officers had raised no objections, proposed additional passing points would make it easier for those who use alternative modes of transport, and a suite of proposed conditions would mean that road improvements including passing places, parking, lighting, site management, ground works and drainage would all have to be agreed prior to any development taking place.

RESOLVED:

That, contrary to the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

·         It is acknowledged that the proposed development could contribute economically to the rural economy by assisting to sustain an existing rural enterprise and would provide opportunities for the public to holiday in an attractive location. However this benefit is outweighed by the harm to the character and appearance of the Shropshire Hills Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) that would be caused by the scattered siting of structures on the hillside, which would fail to protect and enhance countryside character and local distinctiveness. The environmental role of sustainability set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is not met by the proposal, which would be contrary to paragraph 115 of the NPPF, and the development would also be contrary to the Shropshire Local Development Framework Adopted Core Strategy (2011) policies CS5; CS6; CS13; CS16 and CS17, as well as the Shropshire Council Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev)Plan (2015) policies MD2; MD11 and MD12.