Change of use of land to accommodate 4 no. holiday chalets with associated access and parking; installation of package treatment plant.

The Principal 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 the previous day and had viewed the site and assessed the impact of the proposal on the surrounding area.

Members noted the additional information as set out in the Schedule of Additional Letters circulated prior to the meeting which included a statement from Councillor Madge Shineton, one of the two Local Ward Members.

Councillor G Wadsworth, representing Farlow Parish Council, spoke against the proposal in accordance with the Council’s Scheme for Public Speaking at Planning Committees.

Mr P Harding, the applicant, spoke for 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 Gwilym Butler, as local Ward Councillor, made a statement.  He then left the table, took no part in the debate and did not vote on this item.  During his statement, the following points were raised:

·         There was a lack of holiday accommodation in the area, major hotels and accommodation that was suitable for use by schools;

·         Would help support the public house that had recently opened in the area;

·         Would help to encourage income into a low wage economy;

·         Family work closely with the local community, are well respected and would abide by any conditions;

·         Diversification should be supported; and

·         The benefits of the scheme would outweigh the harm raised by the objectors.

In the ensuing debate, Members noted the comments of all speakers and considered the submitted plans.  Some Members considered that the proposal should not be supported given the continued objection of Natural England.  Other Members supported the proposal subject to appropriate conditions regarding layout, materials and a register of occupation to ensure the chalets are used and remain as holiday accommodation.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Planner explained that if Members were minded to grant consent contrary to the advice of Natural England a notice of the permission and a statement to include the reasons for departing from their advice would have to be sent to Natural England, following which the application may have to come back to Shropshire Council for reconsideration.  He further provided advice regarding the guidelines relating to the granting of a temporary consent, definition of a caravan and occupancy of holiday lets.

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 and to the role of Shropshire as a tourist destination to stay.  However these benefits are considered to be outweighed by the following environmental harm. 

          The principle of the proposed change of use of agricultural land and the erection of four holiday chalets in this remote and unsustainable rural area is contrary to both local and national policy planning policy which aims to locate this type of development adjacent to existing settlements or close to existing facilities.  The introduction of significant new built form in to this very open location would detract from the visual amenity of the area and fails to respect the local distinctiveness of this part of Upper Marsh.  The proposed log cabins and associated hard landscaping 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 7, 17, 28, 58 and 109.

2.         The application site is adjacent to Catherton Common (SSSI and SWT Reserve) and within both a buffer zone and ‘corridor’ of the Shropshire Environmental Network.  Therefore, the proposed scheme must clearly demonstrate how the development will promote the preservation, restoration and re-creation of priority habitats and ecological networks.  It is not considered that the level of suggested ecological enhancement will balance the likely adverse drainage impacts on the SSSI associated with the development.  Furthermore, no consideration has been given to the additional recreational pressure on the SSSI and the Shropshire Wildlife Trust Reserve which could occur as a result of the proposed new tourism enterprise.  Accordingly, the proposed development is contrary to policies CS17 and CS18 of the adopted Core Strategy and policy MD12 of the SAMDev and national guidance contained within the NPPF and in particular paragraphs 109 and 118.