Report No. 70/2018 was received from the
Director for Places, the purpose of which was to consider the
planning referral of application 2017/0993/FUL, Cuckoo Farm,
Ketton which had been referred to
Council by 4 Members of the Planning and Licensing Committee in
accordance with Procedure Rule 110.
Mr N Hodgett, Principal Planning Officer,
gave a brief introduction showing the proposed plan of the site
along with views from various aspects.
Mr Hodgett explained that the application was for change of use of
part of an agricultural field on land at Cuckoo Farm, Stamford
Road, South Luffenham to allow a
seasonal campsite and associated facilities for up to 50 tents and
small camper vans.
The Chairman invited the speakers against
the referral to address members.
Ms Jodie Purvis, agent for the applicant,
provided a deputation as below:
This genuine farm diversification scheme has
been designed to complement existing agricultural operations with
the three pillars of sustainability at its core. The proposal
builds on the success of an existing holiday let onsite and would
bring in additional revenue for the farm, whilst providing a
learning experience for holiday makers and creating three jobs over
the summer season. It achieves all of these benefits with no
significant impacts upon the landscape or wider environment due to
its temporary nature and minimalistic design; there is virtually no
permanent development required.
In terms of location, the officer report states
that this application is unsustainable due to its distance from a
local service centre as outlined in Policy SP24, however; this
policy does not put an actual figure on the recommended distance to
local services. This site is easily accessible via foot or bicycle
and includes a shop, which would reduce adhoc journeys to/from site. In any case,
sustainability is not simply about location and other economic and
environmental criteria must be carefully considered in line with
other local and national policies.
A campsite usually requires a rural location
and is generally not an activity undertaken on public transport.
Rutland is a very rural region, requiring a car to reach nearly all
tourist destinations. In short, being located nearer to
Ketton would not prevent visitors from
travelling by car, which appears to be the objective of local
policies in relation to location of development.
Visibility from outside the site is limited to
a single road some 450m away. Just because a development is visible
does not automatically make it visually intrusive and none of the
local planning policies actually state that campsites must be
completely invisible as suggested by the case officer. From the
A6121, the site is seen only in a glimpsed view from a passing car.
There are no views from any other public vantage points,
neighbouring properties or rights of way. The proposal would only
be operational during Spring and Summer and the scene and scale of
visibility would change daily as visitors come and go, with the
maximum impacts only being at peak occupancy times.
The layout of the proposal maintains low visual
impact through the exclusion of the highest, section of the field.
The planting scheme has been designed to enhance existing landscape
features and is proposed not only for screening but also to improve
the local biodiversity, ensuring that the landscape character is
retained as required by local planning policy.
In summary, this proposal offers a positive
opportunity to improve the tourism offering within Rutland as
required by policy CS15 of the Core Strategy, which allows for such
provisions which are appropriate in use, character and scale, and
which support the local economy. The development achieves this
without compromising the ability of future generations to meet
their needs. It therefore meets the criteria of sustainable
development, as defined by national planning policy, and the
decision to permit the development should be upheld.
The Chairman invited Members to ask
questions:
-
Mr Lammie asked for
clarification regarding the types of goods that would be available
in the shop as the report only detailed “farm
produce”. Ms Purvis confirmed
that there had been a discussion with the case officer which had
detailed the type of produce that would be available which included
locally produced meat from the farm, basic supplies and camping
supplies.
-
Mr Lammie asked for
clarification as to whether there was any submission in writing
with regard to the operating days and opening times of the
shop. Ms Purvis confirmed that there
had not been such a submission in writing.
-
Mr Baines asked
whether current customers to the shop travelled by car, bicycle or
on foot? Ms Purvis confirmed that she
believed currently customers came by car, but she would need to
confirm this.
-
Mr Walters asked if
the applicant was aware of the conditions with regard to
screening. Ms Purvis confirmed that the
applicant had agreed to the landscaping conditions.
-
Mr Conde asked if the
applicant was happy for conditions to be agreed with the ward
members. Ms Purvis confirmed she was happy with this.
-
Mr Brown asked if it
was the applicants intention to improve
the quality of the road and Ms Purvis confirmed it was.
Mrs M Cade, Parish Councillor, provided the
deputation as below:
Ketton Parish Council Planning Committee, and
the Parish Council as a whole have no objections to the Cuckoo Farm
campsite proposal, in fact we fully support it.
Referring to the
National Planning Policy Framework, and Rutland's Core Strategy, we
see this enterprise as supporting sustainable tourism, benefitting
businesses in our area, and benefitting our community by providing
local employment.
I visited the site
using the new proposed access via Barrowden Road and Barrowden Pastures. It took me 12 mins to cycle
there from Ketton Post Office –
very little difference from cycling from one end of Ketton to the other (10 mins from Stamford Road to
Park Road, and 11 mins from Stamford Road to Geeston). The relatively large size of Ketton inevitably means that many journeys within
the village are made by car anyway.
The proposed campsite
is small (up to 50 tents), and seasonal (March to September only)
and the predicted maximum occupancy is for July and August, when
traffic along the A6121 is greatly diminished due to the absence of
school traffic.
Cuckoo Farm is family
run, and farmed to Soil Association Organic Standards. Therefore,
again referring to Rutland's Core Strategy, has minimal impact on
climate change, and enhances the county's environmental assets by
maintaining and increasing biodiversity. It also enhances Rutland's
cultural and heritage assets by maintaining the land in good heart
and farmed traditionally (referring to Rutland's countryside and
farming heritage).
So, in our committee's
estimation, the proposal displays all the three interconnected
facets of sustainability – economic, environmental and
social.
The Chairman invited Members to ask
questions:
·
Mr Walters asked Mrs
Cade if she remembered the slides shown at the Planning and
Licensing Committee meeting and the reasons given by himself and Mr
Conde for approving the application.
Mrs Cade remembered the slides but not the exact
wording.
·
Mr Conde asked Mrs
Cade if Ketton Parish Council had
received any negative response from residents in relation to the
application. Mrs Cade confirmed that
only supportive comments had been received by the Parish Council,
but noted that not all residents communicated with the Parish
Council.
A full presentation was provided by Mr N
Hodgett, Principal Planning Officer, a summary is provided
below:
-
The revised access was
off Barrowden Road.
-
A timber clad
utilities building would house showers and toilets.
-
An existing red brick
building would accommodate the farm shop.
-
There was an existing
holiday let on site.
-
There had been some
concern regarding sparsity of landscaping and consequently the
applicant accepted further landscaping conditions.
-
The main issues were
regarding sustainability (distance to amenities) and visual
impact.
The Chairman invited the members putting
forward the referral to speak if they wished.
-
Mr Lammie confirmed
that he had reflected on the decision made at the Planning
Committee on 13 March 2018 and had not been comfortable with the
decision made. He had therefore asked
Councillors Baines, Cross and Stewart to support the
referral. Mr Lammie felt that there had
been no relevant planning policy grounds for approving the
application against officer recommendations and that the Committee
voted to approve the application based on the applicants and their
personal situation. The Committee
should give material planning considerations to justify a decision
to go against officer recommendations and Mr Lammie believed that
only Councillor Brown had attempted to do that. Previous Committee decisions were material
considerations and a previous application near Preston had been
refused on the grounds of sustainability. It had been suggested at the committee meeting
that this site was closer to Ketton
than the glamping site near Preston had been to Uppingham, but this
was not actually the case, so the decision was based on
misinformation. It was not clear how the shop would actually
operate and this required further consideration. Mr Lammie urged members to refer the application
back to the Committee to reconsider.
Mr Walters raised a point of order and
requested that Mr Lammie withdraw his comment that the decision had
been based on the applicant and their personal
situation.
Mr Lammie refused to withdraw his statement,
confirming that when he compared this application to the glamping
site near Preston, he could see no material difference between the
two sites and he felt that the debate was swayed by the identity of
the applicant.
-
Mr Stewart had
supported the referral. He confirmed
that he had been at the pre-meeting briefing for the Planning and
Licensing Committee and had heard the detail of the
application. Mr Stewart asked members
to ensure there was consistency and continuity in the application
of planning policy. In answer to a
question from Mr Gale, Mr Stewart confirmed that he was not able to
attend the Planning and Licensing Committee meeting on 13 March
2018 and therefore had not heard the debate.
-
Mrs Mogg, Monitoring
Officer provided confirmation that Procedure Rule 110 did not
require the Committee member to have been present at the meeting
where the application was heard. If
members wished the procedures to be reviewed, the Constitution
Review Working Group could look at the procedures and a report
could be brought back for Full Council consideration.
-
Mr Cross had supported
the referral. He had been unable to
attend the Planning and Licensing Committee on the 13 March 2018,
but highlighted the importance of maintaining the character of the
county and continuity of decision making.
-
Mr Baines had
supported the referral. Mr Baines was
aware that Mr Conde, supported by Mr Brown, had asked for the
application to be considered by Committee and he had agreed as
there was strong support for the application and, as Mr Lammie had
referenced, the applicants were a respected local farming family
and the council would support possibilities for
diversification. In retrospect Mr
Baines felt he should have asked for an addendum/briefing report
which included the details contained in sections 2.6 – 2.12
of the referral report (Report No. 70/2018). When he attended the briefing, it seemed so clear
to him that the application was contrary to planning policy, that
no further information would be required.
The Chairman invited members to ask
questions of the members referring the application and raise any
points of clarification with officers:
-
Mr Walters requested
clarification from Mr Baines that not every decision which was
against officer recommendation would be referred, it was in fact
for the Committee to make a judgement, taking into account the
officer recommendations. Also did Mr
Baines recall that Mr Walters had put forward specific proposals
and additional conditions which addressed planning issues raised in
the report? Mr Baines accepted that it
would not be necessary to refer every decision that the Committee
made against officer recommendations, but he felt that the
suggestions put forward were unclear and that the Planning Officer
had had to provide assistance with these.
-
Mr Conde asked if Mr
Baines recalled occasions where planning officers assisted the
Committee with reasons for decisions.
Mr Baines agreed that this was the case.
-
Mr Hodgett confirmed
that there was no specific distance set out in relation to
sustainability under SP24, in answer to a question from Miss
Waller, previous decisions made by the Committee and under appeal
were the only guidance.
-
Miss Waller also
requested whether the decision on this application would set a
precedent. Mr Hodgett confirmed that
the decision would set a bench mark for other applications and
possibly decisions pending decision under appeal.
-
Mr Begy requested
clarification of a “supporting facility”. Mr Hodgett confirmed there was no detailed
definition but would normally refer to the ability to visit a local
shop.
-
Mrs Burkitt
highlighted that a decision on this application could influence the
decision at appeal on the glamping site near Preston. Mr Hodgett did not believe that the decision in
this case would necessarily influence the outcome of another, as
each case must be decided on its specific merits. This was confirmed by Mr Turnbull, Planning Lawyer
PCC, who added that the planning authority must apply its own
policy in a consistent way.
-
Mr Callaghan did not
agree that the reasons for going against the officer’s
recommendation were unclear. The
application supported employment and tourism and it made sense that
campsites would be situated in rural areas and people using them
would expect to travel on foot or bicycle to local attractions and
amenities.
-
Mr Bird highlighted
that the view shown from the road in winter had evidenced greater
visibility, but that the site would not be used in the
winter.
Mr Baines proposed the recommendations in
the report and Mr Lammie seconded the recommendations.
During debate on the recommendations,
points raised included:
-
Mr Brown highlighted
that this was not a controversial decision in the view of the local
residents who were in favour of the proposal, along with
Ketton Parish Council and neighbouring
Parish Councils. Mr Brown was concerned
about the provisions under Procedure Rule 110 and would look for
this to be reviewed at a later date. Mr
Brown confirmed that the planning training had highlighted the need
to balance issues and not focus merely on one factor such as the
distance from the nearest settlement.
He did not think this had been achieved with this application and
there had been no consideration of positive social, economic and
environmental impacts.
-
Mr Conde asked for
clarification of the wording in SP6 used in section 2.9 of the
report and requested further information regarding the maintenance
of the road leading to the proposed campsite. Mt Hodgett confirmed that the wording used in the
report had been taken from the preamble to that policy, the wording
“should be within 2000 metres of a town centre” was
correct. There had been no agreement
regarding the maintenance of the road.
-
Mr Cross reminded
members that officers are only able to work from the policies they
are given and that consideration may be given to the wording of
future policies.
-
Miss Waller stated
that visibility may be an objective matter depending on where you
were situated, but the definition of sustainability was clearer
when considered in light of policy and previous
decisions. As it was possible that the
decision on this application could set a precedent it was important
that the matter be referred back to the committee for
reconsideration.
-
Mr Baines asked
members to refer the application back to the Planning and Licensing
Committee for reconsideration, although Mr Brown had put forward
valid points that the application could be approved within policy,
the rest of the debate and the reasons for going against officer
recommendations were confused.
RESOLVED
To APPROVE the referral
of the planning application (2017/0993/FUL) back to the Planning
and Licensing Committee for further consideration.
--o0o--
In accordance with the provisions of
Procedure Rule 11, paragraph 2 –
Recording of Votes – Mr Conde
requested that his vote against the above
resolution be recorded.
--o0o--
The Chairman adjourned the meeting at
8.49pm.
--o0o--
Messrs Hodgett, Pullan and Turnbull left
the meeting and did not return
--o0o--
The Chairman reconvened the meeting at
8.52pm.
--o0o--
Mr Bird left the meeting and did not
return.
--o0o--
Mr Oxley re-joined to the
meeting.
--o0o--