Application under Section 73A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the erection of toilet block, shower block and change of use to glamping and touring caravan site.

The Consultant Planner introduced the application and with reference to the drawings displayed, he drew Members’ attention to the location, layout and elevations. 

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

Mr S Wiggen, a local resident, 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 Tina Woodward, local Ward Councillor, made a statement and then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During her statement, the following points were raised:

·         As the local Member making a decision on this application had been problematic.  On the one hand she appreciated the role the Royal Oak played within the community and would not wish to see the Royal Oak close, but, on balance and based on the information before her and the reasons as set out in the Officer’s report, she felt that she could not support this application;

·         The pods had been relocated and there had been some planting of Leylandii.  However, for the reasons as set out in the Officer’s report she considered these changes to be ineffectual.  The grouping of the pods did not improve the openness of the site and Leylandii was not a native species; 

·         The very nature of the pods, no matter where they were positioned, would cause concern; they are small and designed to be just a place to sleep.  In warm and hot weather there appeared to be a natural tendency for people staying in the pods to migrate to the outside seating supplied by the public house.  There had been reported concerns relating to noise and it was easy to see how this was taking place and could, even with a Management Plan, be problematic;

·         There had been a number of mobile caravans permanently sited on the field and during the holiday periods the field had been full of caravans, caravan awnings, camper vans, cars and vans.  The site had continued to operate and remained a cause for concern locally; and

·         She supported the Officer’s recommendation and urged the Committee to refuse the application as no very special circumstances had been demonstrated or existed that would be of sufficient weight to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt.  The development would therefore be contrary to the adopted Shropshire Core Strategy Policy CS5, Site Allocations and Management of Development (SAMDev) policy MD6 and the guidance set out in part 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework. 

In the ensuing debate, Members considered the submitted plans and noted the comments of the speakers.  Members particularly noted that no substantial changes had been made to mitigate the impact on the visual quality of the area.

RESOLVED:

That, as per the Officer’s recommendation, planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

1.      It is acknowledged that the proposed development would contribute to the rural economy, assist in the viability of the Public House and contribute to the role of Shropshire as a tourist destination to stay. However these benefits are considered to be outweighed by the harm the openness of the Green Belt and be at odds with one of the five purposes of the Green Belt, namely safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. No very special circumstances have been demonstrated or exist that would be of sufficient weight to justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt. The development would therefore be contrary to the adopted Core Strategy policy CS5, SAMDev policy MD6 and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework Part 13.

 2.     Notwithstanding the above, the benefits of proposed development are considered to be outweighed by the environmental harm. The introduction of the structures proposed would appear as incongruous additions to the area and as such would result in a detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the area. Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to Local Plan policies CS5, CS6, CS16 & CS17 of the adopted Core Strategy and policies MD2, MD11, MD12 of the SAMDev and national guidance contained within the NPPF, in particular paragraphs 83 and 110.