Skip to main content

Agenda item

23/03970/FUL - Bibury Trout Farm Arlington Bibury Gloucestershire GL7 5NL

Summary

Re-modelling of existing fish raceways to form a new lake with central island at Bibury Trout Farm Arlington Bibury Gloucestershire GL7 5NL

 

Case Officer

Martin Perks

 

Ward Member

Councillor David Fowles

 

Recommendation

Permit

Minutes:

The Case Officer introduced the item.

 

The application was for the re-modelling of existing fish raceways to form a new lake with a central island at Bibury Trout Farm, Arlington, Bibury, Gloucestershire, GL7 5NL.

 

The Case Officer explained that the raceways were no longer being utilised for their original purpose and therefore constituted redundant use.

 

Councillor Michelle Holt from Bibury Parish Council addressed the Committee. They raised concerns around parking provisions, as well as the perceived scale of development. Cllr Holt also stated that there would be harm to the dark skies, and wildlife.

 

Susanne Marshall, an objector who stated that they worked as an environmental consultant addressed the Committee. They raised concerns over harm to the Bibury conservation area and removal of a natural habitat.

 

Councillor David Fowles, the Ward Member, addressed the Committee, explaining the history of the village. Councillor Fowles stated that the residents of the village were concerned about its future and the development of the trout farm from a working farm into a tourist attraction.

 

Members who had visited the Sites Inspection Briefing shared their views with the rest of the Committee. Some Members felt that while there would be an impact on ecology, there were still plenty of trout Others were concerned over the sustainability of the business’s growth and the traffic impact.

 

Councillor Fowles had declared an interest during the meeting and left the room at this point.

 

Member Questions

 

Members asked questions of the Case Officer and Interim Development Management Manager, who responded as follows;

·         The measurement of the lake was approximately 0.12 hectares.

·         The tourism component of the site was separate to the working trout farm. There was a restricted entrance gate and barrier to the working farm, where most of the farm’s fish were contained.

·         On the topic of potential damage to the environment, the Case Officer explained that no objections had been received from the drainage engineer and no comments received from the Environment Agency. They also stated that no objection had been received from the Biodiversity Officer, as trout rearing resulted in the fish eating many other species within the lake and creating what amounted to a monoculture.

·         Discharge of water from the site into the River Coln requires an Environmental Permit from the Environment Agency.

·         Addressing concerns over the increased size of the visitor attraction, the Case Officer stated that it was not uncommon for businesses to diversify, and that the proposals should be judged on their own merit.

·         The lake could be used for boating without further permissions, as this would not constitute a material change of use.

·         The Biodiversity Officer was also satisfied with the biodiversity conditions being pre-commencement. Therefore, the Case Officer did not consider that pre-permission conditions being applied would be reasonable or necessary for this application.

 

Member Comments

 

Members commented on the proposals, raising the following points;

·         While Members were sympathetic to residents’ concerns, how the business operated was not a material consideration in this case of the application in front of them.

·         The farm had been attracting tourists since at least 1987.

·         While Members were sympathetic to the tourism concerns, they felt that that the Parish Council and business should engage about these directly and work together to solve them.

·         It was stated that the site was an example of rural diversification, which was common across the district.

 

Councillor Mark Harris proposed permitting the application, stating that the application did not harm the natural landscape and provided net gain in biodiversity.

 

Councillor Gary Selwyn seconded the proposal. [CH1] 

 

RESOLVED: To PERMIT the application

 

Voting Record

 

For 7, Against 1, Abstentions 0, Absent/did not vote 3

 

For

Against

Abstain

Absent/did not vote

Ray Brassington

Julia Judd

 

David Fowles

Patrick Coleman

 

 

Andrew Maclean

Daryl Corps

 

 

Ian Watson

Dilys Neill

 

 

 

 Gary Selwyn

 

 

 

Mark Harris

 

 

 

Michael Vann

 

 

 

 

 

 [CH1]Was there any further comment from him?

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages